Saturday, February 4, 2017

WSJ: Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies, such as mentioning margin of error!

Change Would Be Healthy at U.S. Climate Agencies

In the Obama era, it was routine for press releases to avoid mentioning any margin of error.


Opinion Journal Video: Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on why the Trump Administration should reform NOAA and NASA. Photo credit: Getty Images.

It will be hard to notice when President Trump does something worthy of hysteria if everything he does is greeted with hysteria. Take claims that he’s laying siege to the alleged chastity of climate scientists. This is one subject where it might be wise not to rely on the reflexive media narrative. 
The year 2016 was the warmest ever recorded—so claimed two U.S. agencies, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Except it wasn’t, according to the agencies’ own measures of statistical uncertainty.
Such fudge is of fairly recent vintage. Leaving any discussion of the uncertainty interval out of press releases only became the norm in the second year of the Obama administration. Back when he was presenting the 2008 numbers, NASA’s James Hansen, no slouch in raising climate alarms, nevertheless made a point of being quoted saying such annual rankings can be “misleading because the difference in temperature between one year and another is often less than the uncertainty in the global average.”
Statisticians wouldn’t go through the trouble of assigning an uncertainty value unless it meant something. Two measurements separated by less than the margin of error are the same. And yet NASA’s Goddard Institute, now under Mr. Hansen’s successor Gavin Schmidt, put out a releasedeclaring 2014 the “warmest year in the modern record” when it was statistically indistinguishable from 2005 and 2010.
Nowadays Goddard seems to mention confidence interval only when it’s convenient. So 2015, an El Niño year, was the warmest yet “with 94 percent certainty.” No confidence interval was cited one year later in proclaiming 2016 the new warmest year “since modern recordkeeping began.” In fact, the difference versus 2015 was a mere one-quarter of the margin of error.
Commerce’s NOAA makes a fetish of ignoring confidence interval in its ranking of the 12 warmest years. Yet when statistical discipline is observed, 2015 and 2016, the two El Niño years, are tied for warmest. And the years 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 are all tied for second warmest.
In other words, whatever the cause of warming in the 1980s and 1990s, no certain trend is observable since then.
Shall we posit a theory about all this? U.S. government agencies stopped mentioning uncertainty ranges because they wanted to engender a steady succession of headlines pronouncing the latest year unambiguously the hottest when it wasn’t necessarily so.
This doesn’t mean you should stop being concerned about a potential human impact on climate. But when government scientists deliberately seek to mislead, it’s a warning to raise your guard.
For instance, NOAA states its annual temperature estimate as an “anomaly” in relation to the 20th-century average. Do you really believe government scientists can reconstruct a global average temperature for years in the first half of the 20th century with sufficient accuracy to allow comparisons of 1/100ths of a degree?
You start to notice other things. The numbers keep changing. Years 2005 and 2010 were exactly tied in 2010, but now 2010 is slightly warmer, just enough to impart an upward slope to any graph that ignores statistical uncertainty.
Government scientists are undoubtedly ready with justifications for each of the countless retroactive adjustments they impose on the data, but are you quite sure they can be trusted?
Climate science is not a hoax. The U.S. government spends impressive sums to take the increasingly rigorous readings from which a global average temperature is distilled. But other countries like the U.K. and Japan also do sophisticated monitoring and end up with findings roughly similar to the findings of U.S. agencies, yet they don’t feel the need to lie about it. For instance, the U.K. Met Office headlined its 2016 report “one of the warmest two years on record.” A reader only had to progress to the third paragraph to discover that the difference over 2015 was one-tenth the margin of error.
President Trump is a complete novice, but presumably at some point he will climb the learning curve, gain control over his administration, and start making cagier decisions about which fights are worth having. Our guess is that fighting with his administration’s climate scientists won’t seem like much of a priority. And yet, given all the money U.S. taxpayers spend on climate science, a mental freshening wouldn’t be the worst thing. Goddard’s Mr. Schmidt, keeper of a snarling blog that makes frequent use of the slur “denier,” got his start at the New York City-based NASA science lab more than 20 years ago.
On the slight chance Mr. Trump does make such a move, keep something else in mind: Undifferentiated hysteria will apparently be the media reaction to every Trump action equally whether those actions are entirely justified or entirely indefensible.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures

Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures


Last year was warmer by 0.04 Celsius, but it was also an El Niño year.


By now you’ve seen the headline: 2016 was the hottest year on record. The news has been paired with predictions of civilization’s imminent demise. But a closer look at the evidence reveals that the political heat is overwrought—and there’s still no reason to re-engineer the global economy to mitigate small climate fluctuations.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced this week that last year was the warmest in the agency’s 137-year series, and that 2016 broke the previous record for the third consecutive year. This sounds alarming, until you read that 2016 edged out 2015 by a mere 0.04 degrees Celsius. That’s a fraction of the margin of error. Atmospheric data from satellites detected similarly small warming over previous years. In other words, no one really knows if last year was a record.
Here’s what we do know: 2015 and 2016 were major years for El Niño, a Pacific trade winds phenomenon known to produce temperature spikes. The Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels has detailed in these pages how in 1998, another big El Niño year, average surface temperatures increased about a quarter-degree Fahrenheit and then dropped in the following years. That is similar to the increase in 2015—and by the end of 2016 temperatures were falling back toward 2014 levels. Even NOAA admits El Niño’s role.
The underreported news here is that the warming is not nearly as great as the climate-change computer models have predicted. As climatologist Judith Curry testified to Congress in 2014, U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change simulations forecast surface temperatures to increase on average 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in the early 21st century. The warming over the first 15 years was closer to 0.05 degrees Celsius. The models also can’t explain why more than 40% of the temperature increase since 1900 happened between 1910 and 1945, which accounts for only 10% of the increase in carbon emissions. 
These nuances are important because phrases such as “hottest year ever” are waved around as a pretext for political action that usually involves giving more control over the economy to governments. This is inevitably sold as urgently required to save the planet. 
But even these regulations, taxes and subsidies would do little to reverse global temperature trends, though they could reduce the economic growth and wealth creation needed to cope with the consequences of higher temperatures. That is true of all President Obama ’s ministrations—from the Clean Power Plan to the Paris climate accord to subsidies for Al Gore ’s green-energy portfolio. 
The most inconvenient truth during the Obama years has been that the biggest cause of lower U.S. CO 2 emissions has been the energy shift to natural gas from coal. Yet the climate-change lobby opposes fracking.
The Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century by close to a degree Celsius, and the trend bears watching. But the additional questions to consider are about future magnitudes and impact, and what if any policies would make a difference without doing serious economic harm. The best insurance against the risks of climate change is economic growth and innovation—more efficient batteries, for example.
But adding to human knowledge on climate requires a thorough airing and debate over the evidence. That won’t happen as long as alarmists continue to try to shut down debate by spinning doomsday tales about sizzling temperatures.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Solar activity, ocean cycles, & water vapor explain 98% of climate change since 1900, NOT CO2!



by Dan Pangburn, MSME


Summary

Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles, sunspot number anomaly time-integral and increased atmospheric water vapor.



Introduction

The only way that energy can significantly leave earth is by thermal radiation. Only solid or liquid bodies and greenhouse gases (ghg) can absorb/emit in the wavelength range of terrestrial radiation. Non-ghg gases must transfer energy to ghg gases (or liquid or solid bodies) for this energy to be radiated.

The word ‘trend’ is used here for temperatures in two different contexts. To differentiate, α-trend is an approximation of the net of ocean surface temperature oscillations after averaging-out the year-to-year fluctuations in reported average global temperatures. The term β-trend applies to the slower average energy change of the planet which is associated with change to the average temperature of the bulk volume of the material (mostly ocean water) involved.

Some ocean cycles have been named according to the particular area of the oceans where they occur. Names such as PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), ENSO (el Nino Southern Oscillation), and AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) might be familiar. They report the temperature of the water near the surface. The average temperature of the bulk water that is participating in these oscillations cannot significantly change so quickly because of high thermal capacitance [1].

This high thermal capacitance absolutely prohibits the rapid (year-to-year) AGT fluctuations which have been reported, from being a result of any credible forcing. According to one assessment [1], the time constant is about 5 years. A likely explanation for the reported year-to-year fluctuations is that they are stochastic phenomena in the over-all process that has been used to determine AGT. A simple calculation shows the standard deviation of the reported annual average measurements to be about ±0.09 K with respect to the trend. The temperature fluctuations of the bulk volume near the surface of the planet are more closely represented by the fluctuations in the trend. The trend is a better indicator of the change in global energy; which is the difference between energy received and energy radiated.

The kinetic theory of gases, some thermodynamics and the rudiments of quantum mechanics provide a rational explanation of what happens when ghg absorb photons of terrestrial thermal radiation.

Refutation of significant influence from CO2
There is multiple evidence (most identified earlier [2] ) that CO2 has no significant effect on climate:
1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].
2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT [3, 4].
3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].
4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]
5. Since about 2001, the measured atmospheric CO2 trend has continued to rise while the AGT trend has been essentially flat. [21, 13]

Thermalization refutes CO2 influence on climate. (rev 10/21/16)
The relaxation time (amount of time that passes between absorption and emission of a photon by a molecule) for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 6 µsec [5, 6]. The elapsed time between collisions between gaseous molecules at sea level average temperature and pressure is about 0.0002 µsec[7]. Thus, at sea level conditions, it is approximately 6/0.0002 = 30,000 times more likely that a CO2 molecule, after it has absorbed a photon, will bump into another molecule, losing at least part of the momentum and energy it acquired from the photon. After multiple collisions, essentially all of the added photonic energy becomes distributed among other molecules and the probability of the CO2 molecule emitting a photon at sea level conditions becomes negligible. The process of distribution of the energy to other molecules is thermal conduction in the gas. The process of absorbing photons and conducting the absorbed energy to other molecules is thermalization. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.

Water vapor molecules can absorb (and emit) photons at hundreds of wavelengths in the wavelength range of significant terrestrial thermal radiation (nearly all in the wavelength range 6-100 microns) compared to only one (15 micron) for CO2 (wave length range of the single absorption band for CO2 is broadened to about 14-16 microns at sea level due to pressure, etc. but the multiple absorb/emit wave length bands for water vapor are equally broadened). 

Reverse thermalization, where the warmed jostling molecules excite some molecules to emit a photon is almost entirely to water vapor molecules at sea level conditions. The reason is relaxation time of some water vapor molecule rotational emission lines is 0.5 µsec compared to 6 µsec for CO2 molecules and/or the thousands more ‘opportunities’ for emission by water vapor.


Water vapor has more ‘opportunities’ for emission because there are about 35 times as many water vapor molecules in the atmosphere below about 5 km as there are CO2 molecules (See Figure 2) and each water vapor molecule has hundreds of emission bands compared to only one band for each CO2 molecule. Most, if not all, of the photons emitted by the water vapor molecules are at wavelengths different from the narrow band CO2 molecules can absorb. Effectively, energy absorbed by CO2 is rerouted to space via water vapor.

At very high altitudes, molecule spacing and time between collision increases to where reverse-thermalization to CO2 molecules becomes significant as does radiation from them to space.



Figure 1 is a typical graph showing top-of-atmosphere (TOA) thermal radiation from the planet. The TOA radiation from different locations on the planet can be decidedly different, e.g. as shown in Figure 9 of Reference [8]. Figure 1, here, might be over a temperate ocean and thus typical for much of earth’s surface.


Figure 1: Terrestrial thermal radiation and absorption.

Approximately 98% of atmospheric molecules are non-ghg nitrogen and oxygen. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules.


Figure 2: Water vapor declines rapidly with altitude. [9] (original from NASA)

Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molecule that absorbed it. The thermalized radiation warms the air, reducing its density, causing updrafts which are exploited by soaring birds, sailplanes, and occasionally hail. Updrafts are matched by downdrafts elsewhere, usually spread out but sometimes recognized by pilots and passengers as ‘air pockets’ and micro bursts.

A common observation of thermalization by way of water vapor is cloudless nights cool faster when absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere is lower.

Jostling between gas molecules (observed as temperature and pressure) sometimes causes reverse-thermalization. At low to medium altitudes, EMR emission stimulated by reverse-thermalization is essentially all by way of water vapor.

At altitudes below about 10 km a comparatively steep population gradient (decline with increasing altitude) in water vapor molecules favors outward radiation with increasing amounts escaping directly to space. At higher altitudes, increased molecule spacing and greatly diminished water vapor molecules favors reverse thermalization to CO2. This is observed in the sharp peaks at nominal absorb/emit wavelengths of non-condensing ghg (See Figure 1).

Thermalization results in the influence of CO2 on climate to be not significantly different from zero.


Environmental Protection Agency mistake
The US EPA asserts [10] Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a measure of “effects on the Earth's warming” with “Two key ways in which these [ghg] gases differ from each other are their ability to absorb energy (their "radiative efficiency"), and how long they stay in the atmosphere (also known as their "lifetime").” 

The EPA calculation overlooks the very real phenomenon of thermalization. Trace ghg (all ghg except water vapor) have no significant effect on climate because absorbed energy is immediately thermalized. 

Water vapor (Rev 8/26/16)
Water vapor is the ghg which makes earth warm enough for life as we know it. Increased atmospheric water vapor contributes to planet warming. Water vapor molecules are far more effective at absorbing terrestrial thermal radiation than CO2 molecules (even if thermalization did not eliminate CO2 as a significant warmer). Atmospheric water vapor has increased primarily (≈ 98%) as a result of increased irrigation, with comparatively tiny contributions from cooling towers at electricity generating facilities, and increased burning of hydrogen rich fossil fuels especially natural gas which is nearly all methane. Of course increased water vapor causes the planet to warm which further increases water vapor so there is a cumulative effect (in control system analysis as done by engineers, this is called feedback. The term ‘feedback’ has a somewhat different meaning to Climate Scientists). This cumulative effect also amplifies cooldowns. More water vapor in the atmosphere means more warming, probably acceleration of the hydrologic cycle and increased probability of floods. How much of recent flooding is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor? Water vapor exhibits a logarithmic decline in effect of equal added increments (Fig. 3 of Ref. [12]).


Essentially all of the ghg effect on earth comes from water vapor. Clear air water vapor measurements over the non-ice-covered oceans in the form of total precipitable water (TPW) have been made since about 1987 by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) [11]. A graph of this measured ‘global’ average anomaly data, with a reference value of 28.73 added, is shown in the left graph of Figure 3. The trend of this data is extrapolated both earlier and later using CO2 level as a proxy, with the expression kg/m^2 TPW = 4.5118 * ppmvCO2^0.31286. The result is the right-hand graph of Figure 3. (The 1940-1950 flat exists in the Law Dome CO2 data base.)

Figure 3: Average clear air total precipitable water over all non-ice-covered oceans.

Clouds (average emissivity about 0.5) consist of solid and/or liquid water particles that radiate approximately according to Planck spectrum and Stephan-Boltzmann (S-B) law (each particle contains millions of molecules).

The perception water vapor content of the atmosphere depends even minutely on CO2 content is profoundly misleading and precisely wrong because it ignores the partial pressure of water.



The AGT Model
Most modeling of global climate has been with Global Climate Models (GCMs) where physical laws are applied to hundreds of thousands of discrete blocks and the interactions between the discrete blocks are analyzed using super computers with an end result being calculation of the AGT trajectory. This might be described as a ‘bottom up’ approach. Although theoretically promising, multiple issues currently exist with this approach. Reference [13] discloses that nearly all of the more than 100 current GCMs are obviously faulty. The few which appear to follow measurements might even be statistical outliers of the ‘consensus’ method. The growing separation between calculated and measured AGT as shown at Figure 17 in Ref. [14] also suggests some factor is missing.

The approach in the analysis presented here is ‘top down’. This type of approach has been called ‘emergent structures analysis’. As described by Dr. Roy Spencer in his book THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER“Rather than model the system from the bottom up with many building blocks, one looks at how the system as a whole behaves.” That approach is used here with strict compliance with physical laws. 

The basis for assessment of AGT is the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, applied to the entire planet as a single entity. Much of the available data are forcings or proxies for forcings which must be integrated (mathematically as in calculus, i.e. accumulated over time) to compute energy change. Energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance is temperature change. Temperature change is expressed as anomalies which are the differences between annual averages of measured temperatures and some baseline reference temperature; usually the average over a previous multiple-year time period. (Monthly anomalies, which are not used here, are referenced to previous average for the same month to account for seasonal norms.)

The AGT model, a summation of contributing factors, is expressed in this equation:

Tanom = (A,y)+thcap-1 * Σyi=1895 {B*[S(i)-Savg] + C*ln[TPW(i)/TPW(1895)] –                              F * [(T(i)/T(1895))4 – 1]} + D                                                                                 (1)

Where:
Tanom = Calculated average global temperature anomaly with respect to the baseline of the anomaly for the measured temperature data set, K
A = highest-to-lowest extent in the saw-tooth approximation of the net effect on planet AGT of all ocean cycles, K
y = year being calculated
(A,y) = value of the net effect of ocean cycles on AGT in year y (α-trend), K
thcap = effective  thermal capacitance [1] of the planet = 17±7 W yr m-2 K-1
1895 = Selected beginning year of acceptably accurate world wide temperature measurements.
B = combined proxy factor and influence coefficient for energy change due to sunspot number anomaly change, W yr m-2
S(i) = average daily V2 sunspot numbers [15,16] in year i
Savg = baseline for determining SSN anomalies 
C = influence coefficient for energy change due to TPW change, W yr m-2
TPW(i) = total precipitable water in year i, kg m-2
TPW(1895) = TPW in 1895, same units as TPW(i)  
F = 1 to account for change to S-B radiation from earth due to AGT change, W yr m-2
T(i) = AGT calculated by adding T(1895) to the reported anomaly, K
T(1895) = AGT in 1895 = 286.707 K
D = offset that shifts the calculated trajectory vertically on the graph, without changing its shape, to best match the measured data, K (equivalent to changing the anomaly reference temperature).

Accuracy of the model is determined using the Coefficient of Determination, R 2, to compare calculated AGT with measured AGT.


Approximate effect on the planet of the net of ocean surface temperature (SST)
The average global ocean surface temperature oscillation is only about ±1/6 K. It is defined to not significantly add or remove planet energy. The net influence of SST oscillation on reported AGT is defined as α-trend. In the decades immediately prior to 1941 the amplitude range of the trends was not significantly influenced by change to any candidate internal forcing effect; so the observed amplitude of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature trend anomaly then, must be approximately the same as the amplitude of the part of the AGT trend anomaly due to ocean oscillations since then. This part is approximately 0.36 K total highest-to-lowest extent with a period of approximately 64 years (verified by high R2 in Table 1). 

The measured AGT trajectory (Figure 9) suggests that the least-biased simple wave form of the effective ocean surface temperature oscillation is approximately saw-toothed. Approximation of the sea surface temperature anomaly oscillation can be described as varying linearly from –A/2 K in 1909 to approximately +A/2 K in 1941 and linearly back to the 1909 value in 1973. This cycle repeats before and after with a period of 64 years.

Because the actual magnitude of the effect of ocean oscillation in any year is needed, the expression to account for the contribution of the ocean oscillation in each year to AGT is given by the following:

ΔTosc = (A,y)             K (degrees)                 (2)

where the contribution of the net of ocean oscillations to AGT change is the magnitude of the effect on AGT of the surface temperature anomaly trend of the oscillation in year y, and A is the maximum highest-to-lowest extent of the effect on AGT of the net ocean surface temperature oscillation. 

Equation (2) is graphed in Figure 4 for A=0.36.

Figure 4: Ocean surface temperature oscillations (α-trend) do not significantly affect the bulk energy of the planet.


Comparison of approximation with ‘named’ ocean cycles
Named ocean cycles include, in the Pacific north of 20N, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO); in the equatorial Pacific, El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO); and in the north Atlantic, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Ocean cycles are perceived to contribute to AGT in two ways: The first is the direct measurement of sea surface temperature (SST). The second is warmer SST increases atmospheric water vapor which acts as a forcing and therefore has a time-integral effect on temperature. The approximation, (A,y), accounts for both ways.

SST data is available for three named cycles: PDO index, ENSO 3.4 index and AMO index. Successful accounting for oscillations is achieved for PDO and ENSO when considering these as forcings (with appropriate proxy factors) instead of direct measurements. As forcings, their influence accumulates with time. The proxy factors must be determined separately for each forcing. The measurements are available since 1900 for PDO [17] and ENSO3.4 [18]. This PDO data set has the PDO temperature measurements reduced by the average SST measurements for the planet.

The contribution of PDO and ENSO3.4 to AGT is calculated by:
PDO_NINO = Σyi=1900 (0.017*PDO(i) + 0.009 * ENSO34(i))        (3)

Where:
            PDO(i) = PDO index [17] in year i
            ENSO34(i) = ENSO 3.4 index [18] in year i

How this calculation compares to the idealized approximation used in Equation (2) with A = 0.36 is shown in Figure 5.


Figure 5: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the calculated effect from PDO and ENSO.

The AMO index [19] is formed from area-weighted and de-trended SST data. It is shown with two different amounts of smoothing in Figure 6 along with the saw-tooth approximation for the entire planet per Equation (2) with A = 0.36.
Figure 6: Comparison of idealized approximation of ocean cycle effect and the AMO index.

The high Coefficients of Determination in Table 1 and the comparisons in Figures 5 and 6 corroborate the assumption that the saw-tooth profile with a period of 64 years provides adequate approximation of the net effect of all named and unnamed ocean cycles in the calculated AGT anomalies.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide
The level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been widely measured over the years. Values from ancient times were determined by measurements on gas bubbles which had been trapped in ice cores extracted from Antarctic glaciers [20]. Spatial variations between sources have been found to be inconsequential [2]. The best current source for atmospheric carbon dioxide level [21] is Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Extrapolation to future CO2 levels, shown in Figure 7, is accomplished using a second-order curve fit to data measured at Mauna Loa from 1980 to 2012. 

Figure 7: Measured atmospheric carbon dioxide level since 1880 and extrapolation to 2037.


Sunspot numbers
Sunspots have been regularly recorded since 1610. In 2015 historical (V1) SSN were reevaluated in light of current perceptions and more sensitive instruments and are designated as V2. The V2 SSN data set is used throughout this assessment. V2 SSN [15] are shown in Figure 8.

Sunspot numbers (SSN) are seen to be in cycles each lasting approximately 11 years. The current cycle, called 24, has been comparatively low, has peaked, and is now in decline.

The Maunder Minimum (1645-1700), an era of extremely low SSN, was associated with the Little Ice Age. The Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) was a period of low SSN and low temperatures. An unnamed period of low SSN (1880-1930) was also accompanied by comparatively low temperatures.

An assessment of this is that sunspots are somehow related to the net energy retained by the planet, as indicated by changes to the average global temperature trend. Fewer sunspots are associated with cooling, and more sunspots are associated with warming. Thus the hypothesis is made that SSN are proxies for the rate at which the planet accumulates (or loses) radiant energy over time. Therefore the time-integral of the SSN anomalies is a proxy for most of the amount of energy retained by the planet above or below breakeven.

Also, a lower solar cycle over a longer period might result in the same increase in energy retained by the planet as a higher solar cycle over a shorter period. Both magnitude and time are accounted for by taking the time-integral of the SSN anomalies, which is simply the sum of annual mean SSN (each minus Savg) over the period of study.

SSN change correlates with change to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). However, TSI change can only account for less than 10% of the AGT change on earth. Because AGT change has been found to correlate with SSN change, the SSN change must act as a catalyst on some other factor (perhaps clouds [22]) which have a substantial effect on AGT.


Figure 8: V2 SSN [15]


Possible values for Savg are subject to two constraints. Initially they are determined as that which results in derived coefficients and maximum R2. However, calculated values must also result in rational values for calculated AGT at the depths of the Little Ice Age. The necessity to calculate a rational LIA AGT is a somewhat more sensitive constraint. The selected value for Savg results in calculated LIA AGT of approximately 1 K less than the recent trend which appears rational and is consistent with most LIA AGT assessments.

PLEASE CONTINUE FOR REMAINDER OF ARTICLE AT DAN PANGBURN'S SITE for the Identity of the 3 factors in the equation which matches average global temperature (98% correlation from 1895-2015) at

HINT: CO2 is an insignificant factor. From the conclusions:

Conclusions

Three factors explain essentially all of Average Global Temperature change since before 1900. They are ocean cycles, accounted for with an approximation, influence quantified by a proxy; the  SSN [sunspot numbers] anomaly time-integral and, the gain in atmospheric water vapor measured since 1987 and extrapolated before and after using measured CO2 as a proxy.

Monday, December 19, 2016

WSJ: The EPA’s Science Deniers: The agency changes its view on fracking & water without evidence

The EPA’s Science Deniers

The agency changes its view on fracking and water without evidence.


Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy at the National Press Club November 21, 2016 in Washington, DC.ENLARGE
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy at the National Press Club November 21, 2016 in Washington, DC. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

Speaking of fake news, the political scientists at the EPA have rewritten the conclusion of a report in order to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Consider this EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s parting gift to Donald Trump.
Last week the EPA issued the final version of a five-year study evaluating the impact of hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas drilling method known as fracking, on groundwater contamination. The draft report released last year for public comment concluded that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water resources in the United States.” The EPA’s findings haven’t changed, but its conclusion has.
After being barraged by plaintiff attorneys and Hollywood celebrities, the EPA in its final report substituted its determination of no “widespread, systemic impact” with the hypothetical that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances” and that “impacts can range in frequency and severity” depending on the circumstances. 
Any technology has the potential to inflict some damage—self-driving cars can be hacked to go haywire—and the EPA explains that drinking-water contamination could occur if wastewater is incorrectly disposed or wells are poorly sealed. In Pavillion, Wyo., the EPA’s faulty construction of a monitoring well caused contamination. 
Yet after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the EPA couldn’t find more than limited evidence—mostly alleged by plaintiff attorneys—of operational failures causing contamination. That the EPA uncovered only a few instances of contamination among a million some wells reinforces its prior conclusion that fracking doesn’t threaten the drinking-water supply.
The EPA now asserts that “significant data gaps and uncertainties” prevent it from “calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts.” For instance, water-quality data was not collected everywhere prior to the introduction of fracking, which has allowed plaintiff attorneys to ascribe any contamination to oil and gas companies. 
Methane can leak into groundwater naturally, and the EPA even notes that “site-specific cases of alleged impacts” are “particularly challenging to understand” because “the subsurface environment is complex.” Scientists have documented methane in the shallow subsurface of Susquehanna County, Pa.—one area of alleged fracking contamination—dating back more than 200 years.
So after spending $30 million and five years to produce a risk assessment, the EPA has found no evidence that fracking causes widespread contamination. Two years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used the pretext of scientific “uncertainties” to ban fracking, and the EPA’s revised report will give him cover for depriving upstate residents of its economic benefits. Progressives are using the report as ammunition in their media campaign against fracking, and plaintiff attorneys will use it in lawsuits. 
Liberals denounce anyone who cites uncertainties about carbon’s climate impact as “deniers.” So it’s ironic that they are now justifying their opposition to fracking based on scientific uncertainties. As for the EPA’s science, bending to public comment from litigants and actor Mark Ruffalo does not instill confidence in the agency’s integrity.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

The Week That Was: 2016-12-17

The Week That Was: 2016-12-17 (December 17, 2016)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project
              ###################################################
Quote of the Week. “The data are reality. The model is fantasy. Why substitute fantasy for reality?” Statistician William Briggs
              ###################################################
Number of the Week: 666 ###################################################
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Data Manipulation: As twice-elected president of a science society formed in 1871, with early members important to the beginning of climate measurements covering the US, this author has been very concerned with the manipulation of historic data that seems to have taken place over the past few decades. In effect, a warming trend seems to have been established in the data where one did not exist before. As we saw during Climategate, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia “lost” historic data when data was mathematically adjusted.
Similarly, as researchers Joe D’Aleo and Tony Heller have demonstrated, the data entrusted to NOAA; and its subordinate organizations the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); seem to have been manipulated to give the illusion of a warming trend by lowering the earlier data. Now, Paul Homewood, of the UK, points out that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) has changed its own data since 2011 without notification as to why. The adjustments to its December 2016 version give the illusion of a stronger warming trend than existed in their 2011 data.
Each of these changes can be small, but the cumulative effect of persistent changes can be significant. Sometimes revisions are necessary, but they should be publicly announced. These exercises, without full public disclosure, undermine the credibility of the agencies involved. Further, it is not clear if the historic data, prior to quiet revisions, continue to exist. Until these have been independently examined, any studies based on these surface temperatures are questionable.
Since the general Climate Establishment has not expressed alarm over these small, but persistent, adjustments, it is ironical that many in the Climate Establishment are expressing alarm over the preservation of existing climate data. Apparently, they fear that the Trump administration may secretly manipulate the manipulated. Any changes to the data should be made with full public disclosure, to include the effects of the changes on historic trends, with the historic data preserved.
As a side note: the historic data for states indicates that the 1930s was the hottest decade in the US. However, carbon dioxide (CO2) warming, as well as other greenhouse gas warming, should occur at night, with a lessening of energy flow from the earth to space. Thus, the lack of a warming trend in daytime highs does not mean there is no effect from CO2.
Given its address, perhaps NASA-GISS should be called NASA-Broadway to avoid assuming it is engaged in the same science that placed man on the moon. See links under Lowering Standards and last week’s TWTW on NASA-GISS.
********************
AGU Mysteries – Solar: Even though the 2016 meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco featured anti-Trump protests, it produced some interesting findings. In one presentation with press release, and paper to soon follow, solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) create shock waves that cause a warming and expansion of the upper atmosphere and trace amounts of nitric oxide, which cools it. (In the US, nitric oxide is classified as an extremely hazardous substance under the U.S. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986).
The warming and cooling of the upper atmosphere is an issue that has not been fully explained and no doubt researchers on the issue look forward to the publication of the paper.
As a side note, in his testimony of February 2, 2016, John Christy avoided the issue of uncertainty as to the warming and cooling of the upper atmosphere by limiting his comparison of the performance of global climate models against data to 50,000 feet and below. A similar limitation in altitude appears in the August 2016 paper by Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo.
See links under Science: Is the Sun Rising?, Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?, Challenging the Orthodoxy, and After US Election – Opposed.
********************
AGU Mysteries – Energy Flow: Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts had an intriguing poster at AGU. Formally displayed posters have now become commonplace at such conventions due to the lack of time and space for formal presentations. Using satellite measured water vapor data from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) for a 1°x1° gridded total precipitable water (TPW) dataset, the study estimated increase in dowelling longwave radiation from 1988 to 2015.
As expressed in TWTW for the past several weeks, the carbon dioxide warming theory expressed by the 1979 Charney report and accepted by the National Academy of Sciences has two components: a slight warming from CO2 and a more powerful warming from increased water vapor. Yet, the proposed warming of the atmosphere is not occurring after over 35 years, as shown in the work by Christy. The work by Eschenbach and Watts suggests that the expected increase in temperatures is not occurring because global climate is not nearly as sensitive to greenhouse gases as stated in the Charney report. Again, this lack of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases brings into question EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases, especially CO2, endanger public health and welfare – the EPA’s endangerment finding.
This type of research is greatly need. It would be desirable to see continuation of the work by Eschenbach & Watts. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy, and the past several TWTWs.
********************

Improving the SEPP Web Site – Table of Contents: To make the web site a more effective resource, we have drafted a Table of Contents (TOC) for the 6,000 plus links we have added over the past 6 years. Scientific, energy, and policy issues are emphasized. Strictly political issues are largely ignored.
TWTW readers have requested an index for the web site, but a TOC should address their concerns. It will be easier to establish and maintain, with changes made as needed.
To make adding links into the TOC as easy as possible, we designed a program with a scheme based on alphabetical ranking followed by numerical ranking.
For example, the 4 major categories are alphabetical 1) Climate Science; 2) Energy; 3) Policy; and 4) Politics. Then, under Climate Science we have: 1.1 Acid-Alkaline Waters; 1.2 Agriculture Issues and so on. This scheme may not appear to be as logical as order of importance, but it should save considerable man-hours in classifying links as well as adding future classifications.
The proposed Table of Contents for the Web Site can be found at: http://sepp.org/display_toc.cfm. Only the proposed TOC appears, with no instructions, etc.
Comments are most welcome.
********************
Models or Data? On his web site statistician William Briggs asks an important question: Why use models or statistics when simple data will do? This question can apply to global climate models. The models are not performing well where they should be performing the best – in the atmosphere, where greenhouse gas warming should be occurring. The impact on the surface of this warming is secondary. Further, surface data are highly influenced by other human activities, poor siting, poor coverage, and questionable maintenance.
Though not discussed, simple equations may better fit local conditions that modifying un- validated global climate models for regions. Regional data may be better for suggesting future climate change. Simultaneous equation models may be better for 30 to 50 year projections than the current climate models, which are producing highly questionable results in the near-term, not to speak of the long-term. See link under Questioning the Orthodoxy.
********************
Political Games: President-elect Trump’s appointments continue to shake the establishment. As mentioned above, parts of the Climate Establishment, that have not been disturbed by the disappearance of historic data and questionable modifications, fear that under Trump, the data will disappear. The appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt for EPA Administrator is condemned by many, but Pruitt has adhered to the law when he has challenged EPA for overstepping its authority. Also, he has punished companies that broke the law.
Former Texas Governor Perry for head of the Department of Energy brings up other questions, such as his embrace of wind power. It is becoming increasingly evident in the UK, South Australia, and elsewhere, that the unreliability of wind brings a real hidden cost in the reliability of the energized grid, thus to consumers. As touched upon in the recent report on the South Australia blackout by the Australian Energy Market Operator, solar and wind have low inertia while heavy spinning systems such as turbines in coal-fired power plants have high inertia. The advantage with high inertia systems is that they maintain a given frequency in the grid, which is an energized system. Texas seems to have experienced problems on extremely cold nights when the wind does not blow.
The selection of Exxon President Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State brings up a host of objections, including his dealings with Russia. Also, he favored a carbon tax and questioned the work of those who questioned CO2-caused global warming. Yet, he has maintained a robust
intelligence unit at Exxon gathering hard data on economic conditions and trends in countries in which Exxon does business. OPEC Secretary-General Mohammad Barkindo said: “He’s highly respected around the world, he’s deeply knowledgeable.” “There’s a very thin line between oil, diplomacy and geopolitics.” Also, Tillerson is respected by former Shell Oil President Hofmeister, an Exxon competitor. One should note that Exxon was not a major player in the shale revolution.
See links in three categories under After US Election, and under Energy Issues – Australia ********************
92 Feet (28 meters) Under: As the Obama administration is preparing to depart, it seems to be venting a contempt for extraction industries. The out-going governor of North Dakota wrote about the Dakota Access pipeline:
“This particular pipe is state-of-the-art when it comes to safety. It will be buried 92 feet below the bottom of the Missouri River, it will be double the strength of pipe buried on land, and it will have sophisticated flow monitoring devices on both sides of the river with automatic shut-off valves.”
Very simply, the political appointees in the Corps of Engineers have no basis in safety concerns for cancelling permits for a pipeline, the laying of which is 99.98% complete. Developed in the 1930s, horizontal directional drilling (HDD) in oil fields is a technique not generally used for other purposes until recent years with the development of mud motors, in the 70s and subsequent development of precision guidance systems (measurement while drilling (MWD)) in three- dimensional space. It is now widely used in urban areas for power, water, and sewer lines, etc.
Additionally, Department of Interior Secretary Sally Jewell claims the importance of science in this administration, while the Department cancelled a permitted mining operation in Minnesota, without evidence of harm, because it was in the region of (near?) a wilderness area. It is difficult to predict what other economic harm the administration will do in the next 5 weeks, whether the actions are within permitted powers or not. See links under EPA and other Regulators on the March and Energy Issues -- US
********************
No TWTW Next Week: With the Holidays, there will be no TWTW next week and there will be a brief one on the following week.
********************
Number of the Week: 666. The new EPA report on the dangers of hydraulic fracturing to drinking water is 666 pages long, with a 50-page summary. The devil is in the details – there are none. The study presents no new data of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water, beyond the issues discussed in the past. The issues are well controlled by state agencies. The report discusses “data gaps” preventing quantitative analysis. Yet, data is collected by state agencies and generally available on web sites. In the central issue of actual contamination, the report is almost as “data free” as the EPA endangerment finding.
Issues remain, such as treating and re-using fracking water with chemicals and sand, and treating and disposing of excess water, brine, from wells in certain areas such as Oklahoma. But this report is not particularly useful for these issues. See links under EPA and other Regulators on the March.
              ###################################################
We ask you to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to SEPP, an IRS recognized 501(c)3 organization. There is much to be done, to undo the damage to the economy by the current administration.
Please address your check to:
SEPP
P.O. Box 1126 Springfield, VA 22151

Alternatively, you may donate through PayPal. See Donate at www.sepp.org.
TWTW has been accused of bias, and it is. It is more focused on what scientists can demonstrate by using evidence – hard data, and not so much on what they can think or speculate.
Thank you -- whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, or other holy days during this time, we wish you and your family happiness in this blessed season and a joyful new year.
Kenneth Haapala, President
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

SEPP is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in Virginia with the Federal Tax ID of #54-1645372. The donated funds will be used exclusively in furtherance of SEPP’s charitable purpose and will not be used to fulfill any pledge, personal obligation, or lobbying activities. SEPP provides no direct benefit to donors as a result of their donations.
              ###################################################
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Science: Is the Sun Rising?
Researchers dial in to 'thermostat' in Earth’s upper atmosphere
Press release, University of Colorado Boulder, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.colorado.edu/today/2016/12/14/researchers-dial-thermostat-earths-upper-atmosphere
Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?
Revealed: 'Natural thermostat' that cools the air in Earth's atmosphere during violent solar storms
By Libby Plummer, Mail Online, Dec 14, 2016 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4034016/Natural-thermostat-cools-air-Earth-s- atmosphere-violent-solar-storms-revealed.html
[SEPP Comment: Solar pollution?]
Current Solar Cycle Weakest In 2 Centuries! And Grant Foster’s “Far-Fetched” Model Claims
The Sun in November 2016. And models coming back to reality
By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt (Translated/edited by P Gosselin), No Tricks Zone, Dec 16, 2016
http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters- far-fetched-model-claims/#sthash.WVYDMF5I.dpbs
Challenging the Orthodoxy -- NIPCC
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate
S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008
http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf
Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate Models
By S. Fred Singer, SEPP, July 2010
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/Chaotic_Behavior_July_2011_Final.doc
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus
By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, NIPCC, Nov 23, 2015
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Download with no charge https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2013
https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf
Summary: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, 2014
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Full-Report.pdf
Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf
Challenging the Orthodoxy
Prepared Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
By John Christy, UAH, Feb 2, 2016
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY- WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf
On the Existence of a “Tropical Hotspot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding
By Wallace, Christy, and D’Aleo, Independent Researchers, August 2016 https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ef-cpp-sc-2016-data-ths-paper-ex-sum- 101416.pdf
Challenging climate sensitivity: ‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’ #AGU16 presentation
By Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts. WUWT, Dec 14, 2016 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/14/challenging-climate-sensitivity-observational- quantification-of-water-vapor-radiative-forcing-our-agu16-presentation/
Remember when peat bogs were going to release deadly carbon? Never mind.
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 13, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/remember-when-peat-bogs-were-going-to-release- deadly-carbon-never-mind/
Defending the Orthodoxy
Trump’s Choice on Climate Change
By Stephen Cheney, Retired brigadier general in the US Marine Corps, is CEO of the American Security Project, Project Syndicate, Dec 12, 2016 https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-climate-change-security-risk-by-stephen- cheney-2016-12
[SEPP Comment: Where is the physical evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming/climate change? The pentagon reports give none.]
Questioning the Orthodoxy
Don’t Use Statistical Models (When You Don’t Have To. Which Is Nearly Always)
By William Briggs, His Blog, Dec 13, 2016
http://wmbriggs.com/post/20256/
“The data are reality. The model is fantasy. Why substitute fantasy for reality?”
The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare
By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Dec 14, 2016 [H/t GWPF]
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2016/12/13/some-predictions-for-the-future-in-the-climate- game
The Social Cost of Carbon
By John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor, GWPF, Dec 17, 2016
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-social-cost-of-carbon/
The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science
By Scott Adams, (Creator of Dilbert), His Blog, Dec 5, 2016 [H/t WUWT]
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science
[SEPP Comment: The comments by Steve McIntyre are valuable. “In my experience, more ‘skeptics’ are born from poor conduct by climate scientists than from the eloquence of earlier skeptics.” See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/06/quote-of-the-week-mcintyres-comment-to- dilbert-creator-scott-adams-on-climate-experts/
The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 15, 2016
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/15/the-latest-climate-conspiracy-theory/#more-22599
You Ought to Have a Look: How-to Guides to Undoing the Climate Action Plan, Fixing the National Flood Insurance Program, and Killing Mosquitoes
By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger, CATO, Dec 14, 2016 https://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-how-guides-undoing-climate-action-plan-fixing- national-flood-insurance
After US Election -- Opposed
It's up to scientists to call Trump out if he tramples on evidence, Obama official says
As Nasa's Earth science programmes are in the firing line, scientists protest against burying evidence.
By Martha Henriques, IBD Times, UK, Dec 15, 2016

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/its-scientists-call-trump-out-if-he-tramples-evidence-obama-official- says-1596650
“Sally Jewell, the outgoing secretary of the interior, said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco that science had been "foundational" to all parts of public policy under the Obama Administration.”
[SEPP Comment: Where is the evidence for the endangerment finding? See links under EPA and other Regulators on the March for the Interior Department’s latest efforts to stop mining without evidence of harm.]
These are the climate myths guiding Trump’s EPA team
By Chelsea Harvey, Washington Post, Dec 13, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/these-are-the- climate-myths-guiding-trumps-epa-team/?utm_source=rss_energy- environment&utm_term=.3c39a6ab6bfe
A ‘Sense Of Panic’ Over Trump Consumes Climate Science Summit
By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Dec 13, 2016
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/13/a-sense-of-panic-over-trump-consumes-climate-science- summit/
[SEPP Comment: Special session added to AGU agenda!]
Trump falsely claims that nobody knows if global warming is real
By Maria Gallucci, Mashable, Dec 11, 2016
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-claims-nobody-knows-011747403.html
#standupforscience rally at #AGU16 – another Manntastic production
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 13, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/standupforscience-rally-at-agu16-another-manntastic- production/
After US Election -- Neutral
U.S. Energy Dept balks at Trump request for names on climate change
By David Shepardson, CNBC, Dec 13, 2016
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/reuters-america-us-energy-dept-balks-at-trump-request-for- names-on-climate-change.html
On Climate Change, Who Will Censure the Censors?
By Megan McArdle, Bloomberg, Dec 15, 2016 [H/t Timothy Wise]
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-15/on-climate-change-who-will-censure-the- censors
[SEPP Comment: To the writer, both government workers and “deniers” deserve the same protection.]
DOE-designate Perry’s Windy Past
By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Dec 14, 2016
https://www.masterresource.org/perry-rick-texas-gov/doe-secretary-elects-windy-past-texas-post- enron-wind-welfare-queen/
Trump's Secretary of State Pick Gets Climate Change
Editorial, Bloomberg, Dec 14, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-14/trump-s-tillerson-pick-has-right-view-on- climate
Exxon shifted on climate change under Trump pick
By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 16, 2016
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310647-exxon-shifted-on-climate-change-under- trump-pick
Five ways Trump could unwind Obama's environmental policies
By Timothy Cama, The Hill, Dec 17, 2016
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310822-five-ways-trump-could-unwind-obamas- environmental-policies
How Climate Rules Might Fade Away
Obama used an arcane number to craft his regulations. Trump could use it to undo them
By Matthew Philips, Mark Drajem, and Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg, Dec 15, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/how-climate-rules-might-fade-away [SEPP Comment: Ignoring the elephant in the room: the lack of data supporting the models used to make the projections.]
Trump Picks Exxon Mobil’s Tillerson as Secretary of State
By Jennifer Jacobs, Nick Wadhams, and Ben Brody, Bloomberg, Dec 12, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-13/trump-said-to-pick-exxon-mobil-s- tillerson-as-secretary-of-state
After US Election -- Favorable
Fossil Fuel Energy Development: The Trump Administration’s Priority
By Alan Carlin, Carlin Economics and Science, Dec 15, 2016
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3246
Scott Pruitt Is The Ideal Nominee to Lead the EPA
By Donald R. van der Vaart, Real Clear Energy, Dec 15, 2016
http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/12/15/scott_pruitt_is_the_ideal_nominee_to_lead_th e_epa_110146.html
[SEPP Comment: By Secretary of the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality who was considered on the short list for the position.]
Shifting sands of the climate debate
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Dec 12, 2016
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/12/shifting-sands-of-the-climate-debate/
“Insiders are out; and outsiders are becoming the insiders.”
“I expect that climate and energy policy will be a winner in the Trump administration relative to the Obama administration. Any solutions will come from innovations in the private sector and state and local governments — not from federal decrees or U.N. proclamations.”

The Media Still Don’t Get Trump
The public doesn’t care about what obsesses pundits—and the president-elect knows it. By Jason Riley, WSJ, Via The Hockey Schtick, Dec 13, 2016
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2016/12/wsj-media-still-dont-get-trump.html
Tillerson’s Foreign Prowess Said Aided by Exxon Intelligence Arm
By Joe Carroll, Blomberg, Dec 15, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/tillerson-s-foreign-prowess-said-aided-by- exxon-intelligence-arm
[SEPP Comment: Video of former Shell Oil president Hofmeister on Tillerson The US has energy plan.]
Review of Recent Scientific Articles by CO2 Science
Five Decades of Wind-Induced Erosion within Chinese Drylands
Yang, F. and Lu, C. 2016. Assessing changes in wind erosion climatic erosivity in China's dryland region during 1961-2012. Dec 1, 2016
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/dec/a9.php
“Continuing, Yang and Lu write that ‘wind speed was the most sensitive and determinant factor of climatic erosivity,’ and that ‘the regional mean wind speed was decreased by 24.4% during 1961- 2012,’ which decline ‘reduced the erosivity by 58.2%.’ And that's a climate change that most people would likely consider to be extremely positive.”
Late-Holocene Solar Variability and Its Impact on Climate in Korea
Chae, I. and Park, J. 2016. Climate change and human activities over the past millennium at Mt. Jeombong, central-eastern Korea. Geosciences Journal 20: 477-484. Dec 14, 2016 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/dec/a8.php
“The two Korean researchers report that the Jeombong pollen records demonstrate the existence of both the warm Medieval Climate Anomaly and the much colder Little Ice Age, which they make a point of noting ‘are two well-known centennial climate shifts that were primarily caused by solar variability.’"
Potential Effects of Diel-Cycling Hypoxia and pH on Oyster Growth [Daily changes]
Keppel, A.G., Breitburg, D.L. and Burrell, R.B. 2016. Effects of Co-Varying Diel-Cycling Hypoxia and pH on Growth in the Juvenile Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0161088. Dec 12, 2016 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/dec/a6.php
"’juvenile oysters have [1] an ability to acclimate to, and [2] ultimately compensate for, the negative effects of hypoxia on growth, as well as [3] an ability under some circumstances to withstand exposure to co-varying cycling hypoxia as low as 0.5 mg/liter and [4] pH as low as 7.0 without reductions in growth.’"
Models v. Observations
Why do climate models disagree on the size of global temperature variability?
Dr. Patrick T. Brown's Personal Website, Dec 5, 2016 [H/t Climate Etc.]
https://patricktbrown.org/2016/12/05/why-do-climate-models-disagree-on-the-size-of-global- temperature-variability/
[SEPP Comment: The major issue not discussed is that global mean surface-air temperature (GMST) is taken slightly above ground level, not in the atmosphere where CO2-caused warming is theorized to occur, and where it is not occurring as theorized by climate modelers.]
Measurement Issues -- Surface
Another New Paper Reveals No Discernible Human Influence On Global Ocean Temperatures, Climate
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 12, 2016 http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/12/another-new-paper-reveals-no-discernible-human-or-co2- influence-on-global-ocean-temperatures-climate/#sthash.P4IL3K69.dpbs
Measurement Issues -- Atmosphere
New Location for UAH Version 6 Text Files
By Roy Spencer, UAH, Dec 13, 2016
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/12/new-location-for-uah-version-6-text-files/
Changing Weather
Even with warm 2016/17 winter, US 20+ year trends are still down
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, ICECAP, Dec 14, 2016
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes- blog/even_with_warm_2016_17_winter_us_20_year_trends_are_still_down/
On the Decrease of Hot Days in the US
By Turbulent Eddie, Climate Etc. Dec 16, 2016
https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/16/on-the-decrease-of-hot-days-in-the-us/
Changing Climate
Ancient climate change at #AGU16 – Atacama Desert may have harbored lakes, wetlands
By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Dec 15, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/15/ancient-climate-change-at-agu16-atacama-desert-may- have-harbored-lakes-wetlands/
Changing Seas
A Summary of Meehl, et al., 2016 and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
By Andy May, WUWT, Dec 12, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/12/a-summary-of-meehl-et-al-2016-and-the-interdecadal- pacific-oscillation/
Prof Peter Ridd, bleaching is not new, like coral spawning, we just discovered it the 1980s
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 10, 2016
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/prof-peter-ridd-bleaching-is-not-new-like-coral-spawning-we- just-discovered-it-the-1980s/
New studies take a second look at coral bleaching culprit
By Staff Writers, Cape Cod MA (SPX), Dec 13, 2016
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_studies_take_a_second_look_at_coral_bleaching_culprit_ 999.html
Link to paper: Species-specific control of external superoxide levels by the coral holobiont during a natural bleaching event
By Julia M. Diazk, et al. Nature Communications, Dec 7, 2016
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13801
“...excessive production of superoxide within the coral tissue can cause the loss of symbiotic algae living inside the coral.”
What caused the 2011 mass oyster die-off in California?
The consequences of atmospheric rivers may be dramatic for wild oyster populations.
By Léa Surugue, IBT, Dec 14, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/what-caused-2011-mass-oyster-die-off-california- 1596324?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yah oous/news&yptr=yahoo
Link to paper: Atmospheric rivers and the mass mortality of wild oysters: insight into an extreme future?
By Cheng, Chang, Deck, and Ferner, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Dec 14, 2016
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1844/20161462
“Climate change is predicted to increase the frequency and severity of extreme events.”
[SEPP Comment: Roger Pielke Jr. showed that the predictions are not bearing out. The die-off was from change in salinity not temperature.]
Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice
Arctic temperatures have hit levels that haven't been seen for thousands of years
By Ian Johnston, The Independent, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/arctic-temperatures-have-hit-levels-that-havent-been-seen-for- thousands-of-years-2016-12
The report found the average annual air temperature over land areas was the “highest in the observational record” at 3.5C above 1900. Sea ice levels also fell to the lowest since satellite records began in 1979.
[SEPP Comment: Perhaps NOAA will reveal the locations of the thermometers throughout the Arctic in 1900.]
Hottest Arctic Hype
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 16, 2016
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/hottest-arctic-hype/
[SEPP Comment: Warmer than usual temperatures, well below freezing, is no reason to go sunbathing there.]
Inside the Arctic’s ‘unprecedented’ report card
By Joshua Rhett Miller, New York Post, Dec 13, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]
http://nypost.com/2016/12/13/the-arctic-got-its-annual-report-card-and-its-really-bad/
Scientists: Greenland Is Now Much Colder With More Advanced Ice Sheet Margins Than 90% Of The Last 7,500 Years
By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Dec 15, 2016 http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/15/scientists-greenland-is-now-much-colder-with-more- advanced-ice-sheet-margins-than-90-of-the-last-7500-years/#sthash.PGxUm5x7.dpbs
Climate Change causes more snow and ice on Greenland
By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Dec 16, 2016
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/12/climate-change-causes-more-snow-and-ice-on- greenland/#more-52255
Most of Greenland Ice Melted to Bedrock in Recent Geologic Past, Study Says
By Staff Writers, Lamont-Doherry Earth Observatory, Dec 7, 2016
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/most-greenland-ice-melted-bedrock-recent-geologic- past-study-says
“Finding Suggests the Ice Sheet Is More Vulnerable than Thought”
[SEPP Comment: Depends on who did the thinking!]
Antarctic Sea Ice Retreats Due To Wind Patterns
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 14, 2016
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/antarctic-sea-ice-retreats-due-to- wind-patterns/
Mysterious "crater" in Antarctica has ominous cause
By Stephanie Pappas, CBS News, Dec 14, 2016 [H/t Clyde Spencer]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mysterious-crater-in-antarctica-has-ominous-cause/
[SEPP Comment: What is meant by stating a moulin demonstrates East Antarctic ice is “vulnerable”?]
Lowering Standards
Gavin Caught Cheating Again
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 13, 2016
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/gavin-caught-cheating-again/
Five Years of GISS Cheating (Dec 17, 2016)
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/five-years-of-giss-cheating/
“Since October, he has increased global land temperatures for recent years by up to 0.03C, whilst lowering many years prior to 1970.”
Use and abuse of climate simulations
By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Dec 12, 2016
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/12/12/use-and-abuse-of-climate-simulations.html
[SEPP Comment: Announcing a talk by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA-GISS, who “was the inaugural winner of the American Geophysical Union's Climate Communication Prize in 2011” after he invented the concept that CO2 was “the control knob of the earth’s temperatures.” – sub- prime science.]
NYT Blames Winter Chill on Global Warming
Guest essay by Eric Worrall, WUWT, Dec 16, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/16/nyt-blames-winter-chill-on-global-warming/
“How much more of this global warming driven extreme cold can we take?”
Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.
During last warming period, Antarctica heated up 2 to 3 times more than planet average
By Staff Writer, Scienmag, Dec 5, 2016
http://scienmag.com/during-last-warming-period-antarctica-heated-up-2-to-3-times-more-than- planet-average/
“The calculations are in line with estimates from most climate models, proving that these models do a good job of estimating past climatic conditions and, very likely, future conditions in an era of climate change and global warming.”
[SEPP Comment: False! The models do not predict atmospheric temperatures well.]
Questioning European Green
£300 Billion: The Cost of the Climate Change Act (UK)
By Peter Lilley, MP, GWPF, Dec 11, 2016 [Press Release]
http://www.thegwpf.com/report-reveals-300-billion-cost-of-britains-climate-change-act/ Link to report: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/12/CCACost-Dec16.pdf
Matt Ridley: Climate Change Act Has Cost Us The Earth
By Matt Ridley, The Times, Via GWPF, Dec 12, 2016
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-climate-change-act-has-cost-us-the-earth/
How NOT to Regulate Pesticides: EU, Canada Lessons for Trump (Part II)
By Paul Driessen, Master Resource, Dec 16, 2016
https://www.masterresource.org/pesticide-regulation/not-regulate-pesticides-ii/
“Seek solutions that balance the interests of agricultural producers, consumers, and the environment, since one side of an argument rarely has a monopoly on merit.”
Funding Issues
Energy innovation is focus of Gates-led $1 billion fund
By Staff Writers, Miami (AFP), Dec 12, 2016
http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Energy_innovation_is_focus_of_Gates- led_1_billion_fund_999.html
[SEPP Comment: That should have been the focus of tens of billions of government expenditures in wind and solar subsidies.]
Foreign Aid Officials Lose Track Of £274m Climate Fund Handout
By Dominic Kennedy, The Times, Via GWPF, Dec 12, 2016
http://www.thegwpf.com/foreign-aid-officials-lose-track-of-274m-climate-fund-handout/
[SEPP Comment: Would Bill Gates let UK officials get away with that?]
EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA Releases Final Report on Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing Activities on Drinking Water
EPA’s report concludes that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances and identifies factors that influence these impacts
Press Release, EPA, Dec 13, 2016
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-final-report-impacts-hydraulic-fracturing- activities-drinking-water
Link to report: Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report)
By Staff Writers, EPA, Dec 2016
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990
[666 Pages – executive summary of 50 pp]
Wastewater – excess water from wells or injection fluids

EPA’s final fracking report re-writes takeaways
After outside review, conclusions are a little more cautious.
By Scott Johnson, Ars Technica, Dec 14, 2016
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/epas-final-fracking-report-re-writes-takeaways/ [SEPP Comment: Useful map of areas of hydraulic fracturing.]
Did EPA Really ‘Reverse’ Its Stance On Fracking? No
By Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, Dec 14, 2016
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/14/did-epa-really-reverse-its-stance-on-fracking-no/
“So that’s what EPA did. Officials changed the language in their report to highlight that fracking can impact drinking water — something they found in their draft report — but “data gaps” prevent any sort of quantitative analysis.”
No, The EPA Has Not Actually Changed Its Conclusion On Risks Of Fracking To Drinking Water
By Robert Rapier, Forbes, Dec 15, 2016 [H/t Cooler Heads] http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/12/15/yes-direct-injection-of-fracking-fluid-into- groundwater-causes-contamination/#11586a0c7470
Feds block northern Minnesota mining project
By Devin Henry, The Hill, Dec 15, 2016
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310554-feds-block-northern-minnesota-mining- project
Energy Issues – Non-US
OPEC Deal Can Work, But ‘We Tend to Cheat,’ Al-Naimi Says [former Saudi Arabia Oil Minister]
By Catherine Traywick, Bloomberg, Dec 2, 2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-02/opec-deal-can-work-but-we-tend-to-cheat- al-naimi-says
The Saudis Vs Shale
By Editors, Real Clear Energy, Dec 15, 2016
http://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2016/12/15/saudis_vs_shale_110145.html
Graphs of Saudi budget surplus/deficit as a percentage of GDP & Economic growth
OPEC's Oil Production Cuts Pressure U.S. Shale
By Jude Clemente, Forbes, Dec 11, 2016
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/12/11/opecs-oil-production-cuts-pressure-u-s- shale/#5f3dbf5c71d7
Britain facing energy crisis that could see families pay extra to keep the lights on while neighbours 'sit in the dark
By Peter Dominiczak, Telegraph, UK, Dec 12, 2016 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/11/britain-facing-energy-crisis-could-could-see- families-pay-extra/
[SEPP Comment: From a senior executive of UK’s Ofgem, the Office of Electricity Regulation and Gas Supply. Has reliability becomes a luxury?]
Hot air: Bombshell report shows green levies backed by government will cost the economy £319bn by 2030
By David Rose, Sunday Mail, UK, Dec 11, 2016 [H/t GWPF] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4021200/Hot-air-Bombshell-report-shows-green-levies- backed-government-cost-economy-319bn-2030.html
Energy Issues – Australia
AEMO’s third report highlights wind power link to South Australia blackout
By Charis Chang, News.com, AU, Dec 12, 2016 [H/t GWPF]
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/aemos-third-report-highlights-wind-power- link-to-south-australia-blackout/news-story/2bbf105bc613f70966659465043633b0
Link to report: AEMO publishes preliminary recommendations following the South Australian state-wide power outage
By Staff Writers, AEMO, Australian Energy Market Operator, Dec 12, 2016
http://www.aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/AEMO-publishes-preliminary-recommendations- following-the-South-Australian-state-wide-power-outage
South Australia blackout: renewables don’t cope with rapid change report finds
By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Dec 16, 2016
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/south-australia-blackout-renewables- dont-cope-with-rapid-change-report-finds/
“renewable power sources cannot cope with rapid or large changes in frequency, leading ultimately to a “’black system’”.
“’Finding new ways to provide inertia and respond to frequency changes is where work is required,’ AEMC chairman John Pierce said.”
Energy Issues -- US
Dakota Access pipeline: Mob rule triumphed over law and common sense
Misinformed environmental activists and paid agitators forced a weak-kneed Army Corps to postpone the project.
By Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota, Star Tribune, Dec 15, 2016
http://www.startribune.com/dakota-access-pipeline-mob-rule-triumphed-over-law-and-common- sense/406939436/
Dakota and the Pipeline Abyss
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 16, 2016
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/dakota-and-the-pipeline-abyss/
“The Climate Disobedience Action Fund temporarily shut down five other pipelines in support of the group protesting the Dakota Access pipeline.”
Washington’s Control of Energy
Dakota Pipeline Developers Lose $20 Million Per Day On Rejected Project
By Chris White, Daily Caller, Dec 11, 2016
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/11/dakota-pipeline-developers-lose-20-million-per-day-on- rejected-project/
Five People Could Block Trump’s Pipeline Promises
By Catherine Traywick, Bloomberg, Dec 12, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-13/trump-s-pipeline-promises-at-the-mercy- of-hard-to-change-agency
Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?
Canada's oil exports would be dead without US shale
By Omar Mawji, OilPrice.com, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/canadas-oil-exports-are-dead-without-us-shale-production-2016- 12?r=UK&IR=T
[SEPP Comment: Blending light oil from shale or oil condensates allows heavy crude, “syrup,” from Canada and “peanut butter,” from oil sands to flow.]
SEDD Completes Challenging Gas Pipeline Crossing Under Hudson River
By Staff Writers, Pipeline & Gas Journal, July 2016
https://pgjonline.com/2016/07/01/sedd-completes-challenging-gas-pipeline-crossing-under- hudson-river/
Oil Spills, Gas Leaks, Excess Water, Earth Tremors & Consequences
New Ways to Clean Up Oil Fields Without Dumping Wastewater
Experimenting with techniques from desalination to inductive evaporation.
By David Wethe, Bloomberg, Dec 9, 2016
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/new-ways-to-clean-up-oil-fields-without- dumping-wastewater
Nuclear Energy and Fears
Small reactors for heat and power in Russia
By Staff Writers, WNN, Dec 12, 2016
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Small-reactors-for-heat-and-power-in-Russia- 1212161.html
Palisades to close in 2018 [Michigan]
By Staff Writers, WNN, Dec 9, 2016
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Palisades-to-close-in-2018-0912168.html
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind
It’s Easy Being Green
By John Hinderaker, Power Line, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/its-easy-being-green.php
Final wind-turbine rule permits thousands of eagle deaths
By Matthew Daly, AP, Dec 14, 2016
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b8dd6050c702467e8be4b1272a3adc87/final-wind-energy-rule- permits-thousands-eagle-deaths
Solar power on the island of Ta’u, a preliminary appraisal
By Roger Andrews, Energy Matters, Dec 15, 2016
http://euanmearns.com/solar-power-on-the-island-of-tau-a-preliminary-appraisal/#more-15914
“Ta’u is the latest entrant in the growing field of “100% renewables” projects, and this brief appraisal suggests that it probably has a better chance of succeeding than some of the other projects that have been marketed under this mantra. The key, however, is whether the smart grid can be made to work with 100% solar generation and zero diesel backup.
“Now $14.6 million may be too high and $8 million may be really what the project cost, although it still seems a little on the low side. But even if $8 million is the right number it still works out to $10,000 (or almost one year’s GDP) for each of the island’s 790 residents..”
The Glenmuckloch Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme
By Euan Mearns, Energy Matters, Dec 12, 2016
http://euanmearns.com/the-glenmuckloch-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme/#more-16072
[SEPP Comment: An excellent and much needed analysis. Pumped storage hydro is a proven technology for “peak shaving” – meeting daily peak demand. But if renewables, such as wind, are doing the pumping, the real question is: does the reservoir have sufficient capacity to provide power over long periods when winds falter? The analysis uses 90% efficiency for pumped storage, whereas SEPP is more comfortable with 75% efficiency.]
Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Vehicles
Pushing the Green Car Agenda
By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Dec 13, 2016
https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/pushing-the-green-car-agenda/
[SEPP Comment: Requiring more expensive cars for the working man – a far cry from Henry Ford’s goal!]
California Dreaming
Jerry Brown: California 'ready to fight' Trump on climate change
By Jennifer Calfas, The Hill, Dec 15, 2016
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310512-california-gov-were-ready-to-fight- trump-on-climate-change
"’If Trump turns off the satellites, California will launch its own damn satellite,’ Brown said.”
Other Scientific News
Vacuum QED effects detected around Neutron Stars?
By Nir Shaviv, Science Bits, Dec 10, 2016
http://sciencebits.com/vacuum_birefringence
Other News that May Be of Interest
Life Expectancy for Americans Drops for First Time Since 1993
By Erik Lief, ACHS, Dec 12, 2016
http://acsh.org/news/2016/12/12/life-expectancy-americans-drops-first-time-1993-10574
              ###################################################
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
Can jet engines clean up Delhi's foul air?
By Soutik Biswas, BBC News, Dec 13, 2016
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38285567
[SEPP Comment: To blow a hole through a thermal inversion?]
Past Potty Predictions that have Passed Away!
By Geoff Brown, Australian Climate Sceptics, Dec 14, 2016
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/past-potty-predictions-that-have- passed.html
Monsoons decrease & Monsoons increase
By Staff Writers, Climate Change Predictions.org, Dec 14, 2016
http://climatechangepredictions.org/uncategorized/7517 http://climatechangepredictions.org/uncategorized/7515
We have presented evidence from observations that the equatorial Indian Ocean has warmed by about 0.6 to 0.8K during 1950 to 2002, accompanied by a dramatic weakening of the summertime SST gradient in the NIO.
In the model, the weakening of the meridional NIO_SST gradient leads to a large decrease in Indian rainfall during summer months, ranging from 2 to 3 mm per day. Reduction in the NIO_SST gradient basically weakens the model monsoonal circulation and shifts model rainfall from India to sub-Saharan Africa.

Chul Eddy Chung and V. Ramanahan, American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, Vol19 Issue 10 (May 2006)
Despite weakening of the dynamical monsoon circulation, atmospheric buildup due to increased greenhouse gases and consequent temperature increase results in a larger moisture flux and more precipitation for the Indian monsoon. (Douville et al 2000, IPCC 2001, Ashrit et al 2003, Meehl and Arblaster 2003, May 2004, Ashrit et al 2005) IPCC: Climate Change 2007: Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis 10.3.5.2 Monsoons
              ###################################################
ARTICLES:
1. In Oil Face-Off, Saudis, Shale Both Claim Victory
Both sides look to take advantage of higher prices
By Benoit Faucon, Alison Sider and Georgi Kantchev, WSJ, Dec 15, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-oil-face-off-saudis-shale-both-claim-victory-1481803202
[SEPP Comment: The battle was costly, but the consumer, standing on the sidelines, was the clear winner, though not recognized by the authors.]
SUMMARY: The authors write:
“A two-year battle for global oil supremacy that pit Saudi Arabia, head of the powerful oil cartel, against upstart U.S. shale producers left them both badly wounded but with each side claiming victory.
“The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries deal last month to cut oil production has sparked a powerful rally after crude prices had fallen in half over the past two years. That slide followed OPEC’s decision in late 2014 to maintain production levels, despite a global glut.
“For U.S. shale companies, it was two years of shrinking profits and mass layoffs as dozens of producers scaled back output or sought bankruptcy protection. But the survivors became much more efficient and are now eager to grab market share at their foreign competitors’ expense.
“’Definitely, the U.S. is going to win the next two years because OPEC is cutting and U.S. shale is taking off,’ said Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., a U.S. producer that is already ramping up drilling in the Permian Basin.
“In Saudi Arabia, two years of lower oil prices have greatly slowed economic growth, widened a budget gap and led the government to slash fuel and other popular subsidies in moves that risked stirring public discontent.
“Yet the collapse in crude prices didn’t stop OPEC from gaining global market share as shale retreated. It also helped jump-start the kingdom’s plans to move away from a decades long
dependency on oil. Saudi Arabia raised a record $17.5 billion with its first global bond deal in October.”
The budgetary losses for Saudi Arabia are significant – from a surplus of over 10% of GDP in 2011 to a deficit of over 10% in 2016 and an economic growth of 10% in 2011 to less than 2% in 2016 (for graphs see link under Energy Issues – Non-US).
*******************
2. Companies Should Report Possible Climate Costs, Say Global Executives
The information should routinely appear in financial statements, according to recommendations to be presented to G-20 leaders
By Jason Douglas, WSJ, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-should-report-possible-climate-costs-say-global- executives-1481716801
[SEPP Comment: Michael Bloomberg and Mark Carney of the Bank of England are showing their climate alarmism. Speculating on top of speculation.]
SUMMARY: The author writes:
“Companies should publish an assessment of the losses they could suffer through climate change as part of their routine financial statements, according to a panel of financial and business executives chaired by Michael Bloomberg.
“The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, headed by the former New York City Mayor, in a report Wednesday said that greenhouse gas emissions pose a serious risk to the global economy and investors need better information to assess which firms are most vulnerable to shifting weather patterns and related threats.
“’What gets measured better gets managed better,’ Mr. Bloomberg said in a letter to Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England and chairman of the Financial Stability Board, a group of global regulators, which commissioned the 73-page report.
The call for greater transparency over climate-related risks is part of a wider push to prod companies to disclose more climate-related information, a contentious effort that implies such issues are material to a company’s performance.
It also comes amid heightened uncertainty over the future of efforts to cut carbon emissions following President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election in November. Mr. Trump has pledged to dismantle the Obama administration’s climate agenda and chose a global-warming skeptic to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The panel’s recommendations, which include broad suggestions applicable to all companies’ financial statements and specific proposals aimed at banks, insurers and the financial sector, will be presented to leaders of the Group of 20 leading economies in July.
Additional comment: The models cannot predict near-term climate change well. How can management assess future losses from climate change when, after 35 years of theory and billions of dollars in spending, climate scientists cannot?
*******************
3. High-Energy Rick Perry
Revive Yucca Mt.’s nuclear waste site, then close Energy down.

Editorial, WSJ, Dec 14, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-energy-rick-perry-1481762970
SUMMARY: The editorial states:
“Donald Trump is not without a sense of irony, as witness his choice of Rick Perry to run the Energy Department, which the former Texas Governor couldn’t even recall in a 2011 presidential debate and which he wanted to eliminate. Now is his chance.
“During three terms as Governor, Mr. Perry promoted the development of Texas’s vast oil and gas resources. He streamlined permitting while doling out subsidies for green energy. Under his stewardship, the state invested more than $50 million in algae, biomass, solar cells and other political indulgences.
“Jimmy Carter established DOE in 1977 to promote energy development and protect the nation’s nuclear resources. Nuclear security and modernization constitute nearly two-thirds of the department’s $30 billion budget, and most of this could be moved to the Defense Department. The remainder is primarily dedicated to scientific research and development, however broadly construed.
“The 2009 stimulus blowout gave the Obama Administration heaps of cash to throw at green companies, some of which like solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra and electric-car maker Fisker went kaput. The stimulus funding authorizations for most energy grants and loan guarantees have expired, and one of Mr. Perry’s responsibilities will be to wind down DOE’s investment portfolio.
“Another should be to shutter the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE sets efficiency standards for 60 some appliances including televisions, furnaces, toilets and even showerheads. The Obama Administration cranked up the standards in part to disguise the costs of its renewable binge on consumer utility bills. DOE even attempted to ban the incandescent light bulb.
“But many high-efficiency appliances break down before their estimated lifespans, and the upfront costs often exceed long-term savings. DOE’s own data show that 64% of senior-only households and 59% of low-income consumers will spend more on a new high-efficiency dishwasher than they will recoup in energy savings. Mr. Perry may not be able to roll back rule- makings for each individual appliance, but he could impose a moratorium on new standards.
“If Mr. Perry won’t close Energy down, then he ought to work with Congress to revive the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada that President Obama and Harry Reid tried to kill. DOE has paid more than $4 billion to settle lawsuits for breach-of-contract claims by nuclear power plants for not storing spent fuel. Cleaning up the waste will become even more urgent as more nuclear plants retire due to competition from natural gas.”
Additional comment: Adding to appliances breaking before calculated lifespans, homeowners are discovering other costs. For example, a high-efficiency water heater may not fit into the old space because insulation requirements made it too large. Doubtful that increased plumbing costs are included in government calculated “savings.”
###################################################