The EPA Endangerment Finding

In a long-anticipated announcement today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced

After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. 

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

It should be noted that the statement includes that GHG “threatens” the public welfare, while it is “the primary driver of climate change.” The press release relates to two specific findings which were signed by the EPA Administrator today. Those findings are:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

The basis for this decision is given in three sets of documents; the findings themselves; a technical support document (TSD); and eleven volumes of comments (the list is here). I'm going to go through the first of these, a 284 page document, and pull out paragraphs that I have found of interest. Unfortunately I did not, while doing this, insert all the page numbers, so for that I ask your indulgence. Though I will include a few.

Within the findings the EPA explains the legal framework on which it based its decision, the way it went about evaluating the evidence that it considered, and the resulting finding. In its opening statement it notes

the Administrator finds that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare.

And here the gases are specifically defined as “long-lived, well-mixed and directly emitted greenhouse gases.” The primary basis for the decision being based on assessments of the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Research Council (NRC).

The Administrator reached her determination by considering both observed and projected effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their effect on climate, and the public health and welfare risks and impacts associated with such climate change. The Administrator’s assessment focused on public health and public welfare impacts within the United States. She also examined the evidence with respect to impacts in other world regions, and she concluded that these impacts strengthen the case for endangerment to public health and welfare because impacts in other world regions can in turn adversely affect the United States.

The evidence concerning adverse air quality impacts provides strong and clear support for an endangerment finding. Increases in ambient ozone are expected to occur over broad areas of the country, and they are expected to increase serious adverse health effects in large population areas that are and may continue to be in nonattainment. The evaluation of the potential risks associated with increases in ozone in attainment areas also supports such a finding.

The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding. There are uncertainties over the net health impacts of a temperature increase due to decreases in cold-related mortality, but some recent evidence suggests that the net impact on mortality is more likely to be adverse, in a context where heat is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States.

The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, given the serious adverse impacts that can result from such events and the increase in risk, even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods.

Additionally, public health is expected to be adversely affected by an increase in the severity of coastal storm events due to rising sea levels.

There is some evidence that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and climate changes can lead to changes in aeroallergens that could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. The evidence on pathogen borne disease vectors provides directional support for an endangerment finding. The Administrator acknowledges the many uncertainties in these areas. Although these adverse effects provide some support for an endangerment finding, the Administrator is not placing primary weight on these factors.

Finally, the Administrator places weight on the fact that certain groups, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.

The evidence concerning adverse impacts in the areas of water resources and sea level rise and coastal areas provides the clearest and strongest support for an endangerment finding, both for current and future generations. Strong support is also found in the evidence concerning infrastructure and settlements, as well ecosystems and wildlife. Across the sectors, the potential serious adverse impacts of extreme events, such as wildfires, flooding, drought, and extreme weather conditions, provide strong support for such a finding.

And from Page 14

The most serious potential adverse effects are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms. Observed sea level rise is already increasing the risk of storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas. The conclusion in the assessment literature that there is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now endangered by human induced climate change, and may face substantially greater risk in the future. Even if there is a low probability of raising the destructive power of hurricanes, this threat is enough to support a finding that coastal communities are endangered by greenhouse gas air pollution. In addition, coastal areas face other adverse impacts from sea level rise such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence, and habitat loss.

The increased risk associated with these adverse impacts also endangers public welfare, with an increasing risk of greater adverse impacts in the future.

While the impacts on net energy demand may be viewed as generally neutral for purposes of making an endangerment determination, climate change is expected to result in an increase in electricity production, especially supply for peak demand. This may be exacerbated by the potential for adverse impacts from climate change on hydropower resources as well as the potential risk of serious adverse effects on energy infrastructure from extreme events. Changes in extreme weather events threaten energy, transportation, and water resource infrastructure.

Vulnerabilities of industry, infrastructure, and settlements to climate change are generally greater in high-risk locations, particularly coastal and riverine areas, and areas whose economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources. Climate change will likely interact with and possibly exacerbate ongoing environmental change and environmental pressures in settlements, particularly in Alaska where indigenous communities are facing major environmental and cultural impacts on their historic lifestyles.

The above ends on page 15.

However, the body of evidence points towards increasing risk of net adverse impacts on U.S. food production and agriculture over time, with the potential for significant disruptions and crop failure in the future.

For the near term, the Administrator finds the beneficial impact on forest growth and productivity in certain parts of the country from elevated carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature increases to date is offset by the clear risk from the observed increases in wildfires, combined with risks from the spread of destructive pests and disease.

And moving on to page 21.

The concern now, however, is that the changes taking place in our atmosphere as a result of the well-documented buildup of greenhouse gases due to human activities are changing the climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural environment.

Some hint of future regulation may be discerned as the document progresses

On September 15, 2009, EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed a National Program that would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States.

The combined EPA and NHTSA standards that make up this proposed National Program would apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. They proposed to require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these proposed standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012-2016). The proposed rulemaking can be viewed at (74 FR 49454, September 28, 2009).

Much of the rest of the document is a justification of action relative to the host of comments that had been submitted. These 380,000-odd comments, on the proposed ruling, were described thusly.

A majority of the comments (approximately 370,000) were the result of mass mail campaigns, which are defined as groups of comments that are identical or very similar in form and content. Overall, about two-thirds of the mass mail comments received are supportive of the Findings and generally encouraged the Administrator both to make a positive endangerment determination and implement greenhouse gas emission regulations.

Of the mass mail campaigns in disagreement with the Proposed Findings most either oppose the proposal on economic grounds (e.g., due to concern for regulatory measures following an endangerment finding) or take issue with the proposed finding that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations endanger public health and welfare.

The recent publication of the e-mails and codes from the CRU is addressed on page 46.

Our response regarding the request to reopen the comment period due to concerns about alleged destruction of raw global surface data is discussed more fully in the Response to Comments document, Volume 11.

The commenter did not provide any compelling reason to conclude that the absence of these data would materially affect the trends in the temperature records or conclusions drawn about them in the assessment literature and reflected in the TSD. The Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature record (referred to as HadCRUT) is just one of three global surface temperature records that EPA and the assessment literature refer to and cite. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also produce temperature records, and all three temperature records have been extensively peer reviewed. Analyses of the three global temperature records produce essentially the same long-term trends as noted in the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (2006) report "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere," IPCC (2007), and NOAA's study5 "State of the Climate in 2008". Furthermore, the commenter did not demonstrate that the allegedly destroyed data would materially alter the HadCRUT record or meaningfully hinder its replication.

The document further notes

First, the Administrator is required to protect public health and welfare, but she is not asked to wait until harm has occurred. EPA must be ready to take regulatory action to prevent harm before it occurs.

Section 202(a)(1) requires the Administrator to “anticipate” “danger” to public health or welfare. The Administrator is thus to consider both current and future risks. Second, the Administrator is to exercise judgment by weighing risks, assessing potential harms, and making reasonable projections of future trends and possibilities.

It follows that when exercising her judgment the Administrator balances the likelihood and severity of effects. This balance involves a sliding scale; on one end the severity of the effects may be of great concern, but the likelihood low, while on the other end the severity may be less, but the likelihood high. Under either scenario, the Administrator is permitted to find endangerment. If the harm would be catastrophic, the Administrator is permitted to find endangerment even if the likelihood is small.

The Administrator recognizes that the context for this action is unique. There is a very large and comprehensive base of scientific information that has been developed over many years through a global consensus process involving numerous scientists from many countries and representing many disciplines. She also recognizes that there are varying degrees of uncertainty across many of these scientific issues. It is in this context that she is exercising her judgment and applying the statutory framework.

The reason for the ruling is tied to the Massachusetts case

As the Supreme Court made clear in Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA’s judgment in making the endangerment and contribution findings is constrained by the statute, and EPA is to decide these issues based solely on the scientific and other evidence relevant to that decision. EPA may not "rest” on reasoning divorced from the statutory text," and instead EPA’s exercise of judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution that endangers. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 532.

and

The Administrator has determined that the body of scientific evidence compellingly supports her endangerment finding.

This evidence is included in a technical support document (TSD) including the assessment of the USGCRP. It imposes a standard on this information, and seeks to address some of the criticism that has arisen since the word on Climategate got out. Moving to page 86:

Fourth, these assessment reports undergo a rigorous and exacting standard of peer review by the expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government review and acceptance. Individual studies that appear in scientific journals, even if peer reviewed, do not go through as many review stages, nor are they reviewed and commented on by as many scientists. The review processes of the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC (explained in fuller detail in the TSD and the Response to Comments document, Volume 1) provide EPA with strong assurance that this material has been well vetted by both the climate change research community and by the U.S. government. These assessments therefore essentially represent the U.S. government’s view of the state of knowledge on greenhouse gases and climate change.

But it does note

In addition to the significant reasons discussed above for relying on and placing primary weight on these assessment reports, EPA has been a very active part of the U.S. government climate change research enterprise, and has taken an active part in the review, writing, and approval of these assessments. EPA was the lead agency for three significant reports under the USGCRP, and recently completed an assessment addressing the climate change impacts on U.S. air quality—a report on which the TSD heavily relies for that particular issue. EPA was also involved in review of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and in particular took part in the approval of the summary for policymakers for the Working Group II Volume, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Page 106

Thus, commenters misunderstand the role that international effects played in the proposal. The Administrator is not evaluating the impact of international effects on populations outside the United States; she is considering what impact these international effects could have on the U.S. population. That is fully consistent with the CAA's stated purpose of protecting the health and welfare of this nation’s population.

An additional parameter of the endangerment analysis is the timeframe. The Administrator’s view is that the timeframe over which vulnerabilities, risks, and impacts are considered should be consistent with the timeframe over which greenhouse gases, once emitted, have an effect on climate.

Thus the relevant time frame is decades to centuries for the primary greenhouse gases of concern. Therefore, in addition to reviewing recent observations, the underlying science upon which the Administrator is basing her findings generally considers the next several decades —the time period out to around 2100, and for certain impacts, the time period beyond 2100.

Together the six well-mixed greenhouse gases constitute the largest anthropogenic driver of climate change. Of the total anthropogenic heating effect caused by the accumulation of the six well-mixed greenhouse gases plus other warming agents (that do not meet all of the Administrator’s criteria that pertain to the six greenhouse gases) since pre-industrial times, the combined heating effect of the six well-mixed greenhouses is responsible for roughly 75 percent, and it is expected that this share may grow larger over time, as discussed below.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C (1.3ºF) (±0.18°C) over the last 100 years. Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.

There is this specific comment about recent discussion of the world no longer warming at an increasing rate.

Though most of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade in all available datasets, the rate of warming has, for a short time in the Hadley Center record, slowed. However, the NOAA and NASA trends do not show the same marked slowdown for the 1999-2008 period.

Year-to-year fluctuations in natural weather and climate patterns can produce a period that does not follow the long-term trend. Thus, each year may not necessarily be warmer than every year before it, though the long-term warming trend continues. The scientific evidence is compelling that elevated concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are the root cause of recently observed climate change. . . . . .
Climate model simulations suggest natural forcing alone (e.g., changes in solar irradiance) cannot explain the observed warming.

The first line of evidence arises from our basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system. The second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual. The third line of evidence arises from the use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic).

The claim that natural internal variability or known natural external forcings can explain most (more than half) of the observed global warming of the past 50 years is inconsistent with the vast majority of the scientific literature, which has been synthesized in several assessment reports.

Interestingly, for the United States

United States temperatures also warmed during the 20th and into the 21st century; temperatures are now approximately 0.7°C (1.3°F) warmer than at the start of the 20th century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years. Both the IPCC and CCSP reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations. The CCSP (2008g) report finds that for North America, "more than half of this warming [for the period 1951-2006] is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing of climate change."

The finding also speaks to other evidence:

There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate. It is very likely that the response to anthropogenic forcing contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is not clear whether the increasing rate of sea level rise is a reflection of short-term variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.

Nearly all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the last 50 years with the rate of rise reaching a maximum (over 2 mm per year) in a band along the U.S. east coast running east-northeast.

Satellite data since 1979 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 4.1 percent per decade.

The size and speed of recent Arctic summer sea ice loss is highly anomalous relative to the previous few thousands of years.

It will be interesting to see how this prediction falls out.

All of the United States is very likely to warm during this century, and most areas of the United States are expected to warm by more than the global average. The largest warming is projected to occur in winter over northern parts of Alaska. In western, central and eastern regions of North America, the projected warming has less seasonal variation and is not as large, especially near the coast, consistent with less warming over the oceans.

the Administrator recognizes that black carbon is an important climate forcing agent and takes very seriously the emerging science on black carbon’s contribution to global climate change in general and the high rates of observed climate change in the Arctic in particular.

As noted in the Proposed Findings, EPA has various pending petitions under the CAA calling on the Agency to make an endangerment finding and regulate black carbon emissions.

And

EPA plans to further evaluate the issues of emissions of water that are implicated in the formation of contrails and also changes in water vapor due to local irrigation.

And they emphasize on Page 151

We received many comments suggesting global temperatures have stopped warming. The commenters base this conclusion on temperature trends over only the last decade. While there have not been strong trends over the last seven to ten years in global surface temperature or lower troposphere temperatures measured by satellites, this pause in warming should not be interpreted as a sign that the Earth is cooling or that the science supporting continued warming is in error. Year-to-year variability in natural weather and climate patterns make it impossible to draw any conclusions about whether the climate system is warming or cooling from such a limited analysis.

Historical data indicate short-term trends in long-term time series occasionally run counter to the overall trend. All three major global surface temperature records show a continuation of long-term warming.

They do note, however on page 153:

A number of commenters argue that the warmth of the late 20th century is not unusual relative to the past 1,000 years. They maintain temperatures were comparably warm during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) centered around 1000 A.D. We agree there was a Medieval Warm Period in many regions but find the evidence is insufficient to assess whether it was globally coherent.

Our review of the available evidence suggests that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the MWP were probably between 0.1 deg C and 0.2 deg C below the 1961-1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. However, we note significant uncertainty in the temperature record prior to 1600 A.D.

As one comes to some of the predictions that the literature has made on future climate effects the document paints a picture of a possible future. As such, in times to come it will be interesting to see how things turn out. But I will stop the abstracting here. At some future time I will go through some of the other documentation but these were the bits that most caught my eye on a first go through.

Climategate becomes more visible, data is analyzed

Slowly but surely greater attention is being given to the potential scandal that has acquired the “Climategate” label. There are 28.5 million results when I just typed that key word into Google. While the story was first carried in such news sources as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the British Daily Telegraph it has only been much more recently that it has been recognized by others in the MSM. And while CNN is carrying the topic it appears to be slanting the coverage towards the AGW crowd.

This is not uncommon. For example on Friday there was a short mention of the topic on NBC though still doubting its significance. And analysis of the code by an expert was showing the existence of problems that has finally caught the BBC’s attention. Should you watch the BBC piece you might note that while the programmer highlights the words “fudge factor” on the screen, the reporter does not really cover what that means. Yet magazines such as Newsweek continue to offer apologia, rather than asking hard questions, and Nature, instead of explaining exactly how many folks reviewed papers on climate change topics, and whether the cartel really had the power the e-mails claimed to restrict papers, also defended their position editorially, raising the clear possibility that the reputation and integrity of one of the greater journals in science has been compromised.

And after being caught by Jon Stewart it has now reached the front page of the Washington Post (though it seemed to fall off the front page of the Internet edition rather fast).

Interestingly, however, one can pick up by the focus of the comments where the writers of the pieces are coming from. For example, with the Washington Post piece, it is accompanied by a side bar that shows the following graph:

The WAPO comment above the curve was “However, nine of the world’s hottest years have occurred this decade,” which the graph then illustrates.


Unfortunately this statement while obviously absolutely untrue, (there are a number of periods in the geological past that were significantly warmer) even in the context meant (likely that of the last say 2,000 years) is almost certainly wrong, and one of the underlying points revealed in the e-mails is that folk such as Dr Michael Mann appear to have known this. (It was apparently he who first came up with the trick of replacing the data from tree rings, which were starting to show an apparent decline in temperature, while the temperature was actually going up, with real temperature data.) Now there are several issues with this change that folk need to be aware of.

The first, and obvious one, is that if the proxy that is being relied on to predict temperature is not correctly recording temperature change, then the use of the proxy has to be questioned. If the folk who used it do not publically admit to this, then it is reasonable to raise a question both concerning their personal integrity and that of the published papers that they have generated. (Given the cross-exchange of e-mails it also brings others into this collusion to conceal information).

The second point is the one that scientists get fascinated with, and that is why did the proxy data stop being accurate? And one possible answer has been provided by Craig Loehle. To simplify his argument, he points out that the width of tree rings – assumed to be linearly related to temperature – will also be affected by other factors. For example it is not unreasonable to assume that, as temperatures rise above a certain point, that there will be less moisture in the soil, and thus the tree will increasingly suffer, rather than increasing to prosper. If such a case is so, above a certain temperature, then (as the data being used by Briffa showed the tree rings would start to shrink.

Proxy temperatures as predicted by tree-ring data as plotted by Steve McInyre from Briffa data.

Notice that, for the first time in the record the temperature rises above the zero line in about 1930. And then crosses it again in 1960, with the onset of the red part of the curve – which is the decline that has been deleted from the plot). If one looks at a recent Met Office plot of temperature for this period:

Met Office Plot of temperatures. (Sorry I could not get through to the site for a current reference. At present the popularity of the site is causing it to redirect traffic to the UEA announcement page).

One can see that temperatures have risen, at around that time, to lie above the baseline, where Dr. Loehle believes the inflection starts to occur. So that, in his projection, while the temperature continues to rise, the proxy (tree ring) data will fall:

Projection of variation in tree ring data, showing a projected false value for temperature, as increased temperature reduces soil moisture, and thus ring growth (according to Loehle).

The change from the debate about recent temperatures has some relevance, but it becomes much more relevant to the debate over the condition during the Medieval Warming Period. NOAA currently shows this chart, which comes from the 2007 IPCC report.



However what is worth a passing comment is that if one looks at the model predictions of temperature before about 1850 they clearly show that the models overestimate the actual temperatures, and that while the actual instrumented temperatures were showing a Little Ice Age back to 1500, the models and proxy data do not. And if one were to apply the Loehle logic to the data between 1000 and 1150 where some of the models show the temperature crossing the zero line, then one could project that within that period the temperature could be higher than projected.

The tree ring data came from the Western United States for that time period has been a critical part of the debate on the validity of the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper. But we know from Scott Stein’s work that the western United States went through two severe drought periods :

“We now have compelling proof,” says Stine, “that Owens Lake dried up and became a desert playa in the early medieval period. The finding has ominous implications for the future security of Los Angeles' water supply.”

Two years ago, Stine caused a sensation in the science press with his claim that California had endured two epic droughts in the Middle Ages, one of 220 years (from 892 to 1112) and the other of 140 years (from 1209 to 1350). By contrast, the most severe recent drought— which created an unprecedented statewide water emergency— lasted only six years, from 1987 to 1992.

Stine's primary evidence, now broadly accepted, consists of ancient tree stumps that were exposed to view when the 1980s drought and DWP greed reduced water levels by more than 50 feet in Mono Lake (the northernmost catchment of the Los Angeles Aqueduct) and other Sierran lakes and streams.

I would guess that the severity of a drought of that duration would, as Dr. Loehle has pointed out, be enough to narrow the tree rings of the time. Perhaps now we might get a little more investigation of this point?

The point is now being caught by some of the reporters that are actually bothering to dig into the data, and so, for example, Christopher Booker who brings a different interpretation to the story that I have tried to tell in the above. But it goes back to the reliance of the Global Climate Models (GCM) on too little data as I explained in an earlier post back in October.

It is also sad to note a comment in the London Times coverage of the decision of the British Met Office to re-create all the data.

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

But

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

They have got to be kidding !! Even Al Gore knows when he has a problem.

The CRU data dump and the journalistic integrity question

I would be obtuse, perhaps, this week to comment on anything other than the release of information from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The folk that had used the site, and thus whose material has now been passed around, are largely those that contribute to the site at Real Climate, which has responded. For simplicity in what follows I will call them “The Team.” For those who are unaware, a significant amount of information at the CRU, including personal e-mails and data files, has been sent to a variety of sources, though which it is now publicly available.

The files have now been sorted (to the point that they can be surveyed by the curious) and my own initial curiosity – because I am just finishing reading Mia Tiljander’s dissertation, was to find if there was any information on the varve data that she had produced which, when she wrote her dissertation, showed clear evidence for a Medieval Warming Period, but once it passed through The Team, was used to show that the MWP didn’t exist. So I went to the search website typed in Tiljander, and found 3 references, the first of which is a memo from Darrell Kaufman recognizing that they had flipped the data . Not that this is particularly novel, since that recognition was, I believe, recently publically admitted, at least by some of the team, but indicative of the questions about honesty that will now, unfortunately, have to be addressed by The Team if the journalistic brother/sisterhood is to retain any credibility in this overall mess as unbiased reporters of the state-of-reality.

Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data.

The memo seems to admit to regret at being caught, but little at improperly using data to backstop an opinion.

When the files were first revealed the most obvious candidate for a “smoking gun” memo was that from Dr. Phil Jones, the head of CRU to others of The Team in which he notes:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps 
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

There is an explanation of what this entailed at What’s Up With That (WUMT).

If there was only this one memo, as evidence of improper activity, then perhaps it might be viewed less severely, although one has to bear in mind that it has been the CRU and GISS curves for average temperature over the decades, together with the now infamous Mann “hockey stick” of temperature over the last millennium that has provided most of the underpinning to arguments about global warming.

However, as the search has gone on through the apparently 1079 e-mails and 72 documents there are some disquieting suggestions of evidence of more serious malfeasance.

Bear in mind that the authors of these memos are public servants, whose supposed mission is to help answer queries about the topic, and then read the deliberate attempt at denying that role, with statements such as:

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Bear in mind that there was a request under the British Freedom of Information Act that had been submitted for this data and, as the Australian Herald Sun notes:

Destroying government data subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. Is this data being deleted the stuff CA asked from Jones in repeated FOI requests? If true, Jones had better get himself a lawyer very fast, but I doubt very much he would have done anything remotely illegal.

To which issue there is also the following:

And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

This from the same Dr Jones who later noted in a response to Roger Pielke Jr

Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

I believe that any reasonable person reading the memo and that response would be more than a little suspicious that there is something rotten resident in the CRU.

Those who have been engaged in the discussion of the truth of global warming are already finding tidbits that show that CRU had a significant ($22 million) investment in their work, which might argue for a motive in holding the position that they have.

It is disappointing to read of the effort to “diminish” the MWP” :

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back--I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this].

Well it is a mess. Much more manipulative it appears, than the first reports led readers to believe. But will it be more than a couple-of-day storm. Sadly that is going to have to rely on a group of journalists who have become quite sycophantic to The Team, but whose integrity now requires them to bite that hand. It will be interesting to see how many do, and then the response of the political wing that has so tightly embraced the Team position.

How hot is the sea?

I am currently reading Richard Heinberg’s new book “Blackout – Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis,” and will, hopefully before long, give you my review. Now it does contain a fair bit on climate change, but that is not why I would have bought it, if TOD had not arranged for me to get a review copy. The reason that I am reading it, and that I will review it relates to the discussion that it continues on the availability of coal in the different nations around the world.

But even if I were to review the climate change bit (and it will be hard not to make some comments, given that it is interwoven in the discussion throughout the text) I will promise that I will not subject the book to the sort of scrutiny and, in part nit-pickiness that Gorge Monbiot is currently subjecting Ian Plimer to over his book, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science. (I did get a copy of that book, and suspect that I will now read it with the several piles of criticism from a number of the sources quoted by the Guardian printed out beside me on the table. – though I note that in the week since I ordered and got my copy it has gone out of print).

However it did get me curious about the genesis and history of a couple of plots of global temperature issued by the Hadley Climate Research Unit. Some time ago I had used the plots that used to sit on the top left of the Hadley site as a source of information and comment, and the one I used was this one.


Temperature changes since 1850 (Hadley)

However just recently when I went back to look, the easy graphs to find are now these:

Temperature changes since 1850 (Met Office)

Which should not be confused with the summary plot of annual temperatures which Hadley posts:

Temperature changes since 1850 (Hadley )

The difference that has me interested in the bit between 1940 and 1970. It used to be, (top graphs) that that was, overall rather flat – agreeing also with the bottom. But if you look at the new way of combining the data, the global temperature is now shown to have been steadily increasing since 1950.

This is due to the way in which the data is now combined, since it is being done through an integration of land and sea temperatures, rather than the integration of Northern and Southern Hemispheres, or so it would appear.

Now getting the average sea surface temperature (SST) is not an easy task. To illustrate this consider this thermal picture of the Gulf Stream, and you can see the great range of temperatures as that heads out from the American Coast over to Western Europe.

Satellite thermal Image of the Gulf Stream

Thus even when you get the satellite image it is subject to interpretation. It also only reads the temperature at the skin of the surface (i.e. top 0.1 mm) rather than at any defined depth. In contrast there are also buoys out there which can give a real set of measurements at defined depths (but which still have to be weighted and integrated to get an average). And I took the following plot from a talk by David Llewellyn-Jones which shows the correlations that can be achieved.

Comparison between buoy measured (AVHRR) and satellite (ATSR) readings of SST.

One can compare this data with that from NOAA

Global temperature changes from 1880 NOAA.

This shows a slightly different path between 1940 and 1970, but again not the steady increase since 1950. The problem with the data that is used to derive the averages historically is that it has been subject to the odd correction. There were corrections made because of the use of different types of buckets to collect the water, and whether they were insulated, rather than taking the temperatures from the water in the engine inlet ports of the measuring vessel.

Different (metal canvas and wood) buckets used to measure sea surface temperature

The “first guess” estimates also tried to take into account the speed of the ships at the time of sampling (since it affected the evaporation rates and thus the amount of cooling of the sample). It was as a result of the estimates of changes in the errors caused by these different methods of reading that the actual values measured were changed.

Annual anomalies of corrected SST (solid), uncorrected SST (dotted) and corrected NMAT (dashed) for (a) northern hemisphere, (b) southern hemisphere, and (c) globe. Values have been smoothed with a 21-term low-pass binomial filter.

With the original readings being the dotted lines, you can see how the pre-1940 values have been adjusted. The original work showed that the variations between buckets and non-buckets were location sensitive., and it has been shown that it is also seasonal.

With these uncertainties it appears that there are still questions as to which data is the most accurate. The problem is also that the different techniques measure temperatures at different points in the sea, and when one changes from one method to another then corrections must be estimated and applied to bring everything to a common level. As a result the confidence that the historic data, as reported by the different Climate groups, is accurate seems less secure than it should be, given the importance that is being placed upon it.

Sadly it is more likely that the curves will be chosen which best reflect the bias of the selector and used without recognition of the potential errors and assumptions that have been made in generating it.