Tech Talk - of Wheat and Coal

The release of the latest assessment of the IPCC on the future of the planet, failing their push to cut greenhouse gas emissions, has brought forth headlines and supportive editorials in papers around the world. Yet I could not help but note a couple of things that form the basis for this tech talk. The first was that the report discussed the impacts of climate change (for which I suspect in this case they mean global warming) on agricultural production. They stress the negative impacts on crops such as wheat, and so, being curious, I went to the Wikipedia page that provides a table of wheat production over the past eighteen years, and plotted the data.

Figure 1. Global wheat production in millions of metric tons (after the Food and Agricultural Organization via Wikipedia)

Clearly wheat production is growing rather than, as the IPCC report implies, declining with the increase in carbon dioxide levels and longer growing seasons in parts of the world. More to the point – which is providing more food – (h/t Joules Burn) the two staple crops wheat and corn, have both seen growing production, but it is the slower pace of growth of wheat (at about 0.9%) over corn (at about 1.6%) that is of current concern, and which is to be addressed with new investments in the International Wheat Yield Partnership that plan to more than double yields in the next 20 years. This is needed in large part to match the continued growth in world population, which is likely to continue to rely on wheat to provide roughly 20% of the calories that this population will consume. Gains come both from increased land acreage being used, but also from the yields of that land. In the UK, for example, yields now average 7.8 tonnes per hectare up from 2.5 tonnes in 1940, the current target is to reach 20 tonnes per hectare in the next 20 years. Given that the global average is still down around 3 tonnes per hectare, the ability to bring this productivity to the broader community will give significant help to feeding the world.

I mention this because of the clear disparity between this information and the way that material is presented by the IPCC. Further the real needs of the world and its nations are now increasingly being addressed with less attention to the strident demand of the more alarmist of those who push the climate change agenda, in part perhaps because of the overhyping of the message. The latest illustration of this comes from Japan.

Following the devastation of the tsunami following the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011 the Japanese public has been very nervous about the use of nuclear power, banning the restart of 48 nuclear power stations until after a new series of safety checks. This has had two short-term consequences, the financial melt-down of the power companies, which is now being addressed through government bailout and the need to switch to alternate fossil fuels to replace the power that the country obtained from the reactors. The switch was largely to natural gas, and to oil but this has proved to be an expensive undertaking with companies feeling that they could only raise power prices to a limited degree, hence their need now for government funding.

Figure 2. The changing face of electricity supply in Japan following the Earthquake, (MIT technology review )

But the sustained high cost of the gas and oil is estimated to be costing the companies over $30 billion a year and even with the government bailouts this is not an acceptable long term solution, given that it is likely to be years before the safety changes are made in the reactors, and also given the continued public opposition to restarting the reactors. As a result the companies have sought permission to switch back to coal-fired power plants. Concurrently the Japanese Coal Energy Center has been looking for coal resources around the world ranging from Mongolia to Mozambique.

in 2012 Japan was the second largest of the coal-importing nations at 189 million tons (behind China at 289 million) and current plans are to increase the amount of power that the fuel will provide by roughly 20% through construction of new power stations. (Some of these will be needed since, while some nuclear power stations may come back on line others are proving to be too expensive to restart under the new codes, and thus will be permanently closed).

It is this clear benefit of cost that is driving the change, and that benefit is unlikely to disappear over the next couple of decades. The renewable energy industry has not been able to overcome the advantages of coal’s ubiquitous presence and low cost of production. In the case of Japan supplies are anticipated to come from Canada and the United States easing their dependence on Australia and perhaps helping reduce their costs as they develop more international suppliers. Glencore, for example, their Australian supplier, has now reduced costs to $88 a ton, from the $95 being paid last year. It is estimated that there is currently a glut of about 5% of the coal market, and the reduced demands for thermal coal in the United States and Europe is unlikely to change that picture in the short term.

The longer term remains more cloudy, since the potential for the United States to enter, in a significant way, the LNG market and potentially to change those supply costs is not yet clear. It seems, however, unlikely that the volumes that will become available will not have much impact on price, and if that remains the case then coal will continue to grow as the price differential continues to add pressure for the its use in generating cheaper electricity.

Whether this will change the recently better-defined coal resources off the British Isles into a reserve remains, in the short term, unlikely, but even in the UK power costs can only rise so far before the public complaints begin to have an effect.

Dr. Judith Curry on the IPCC

A fairly long time ago Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States, and the Federal Agencies scrambled to find projects in Georgia that they might propose. The National Science Foundation looked to improve the quarrying of granite, one of the centers for which was in Elberton, GA, and some of the technology at the time was relatively unhealthy. Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) was prime on the contract, and I was initially a member of the Advisory Panel, but eventually took a crew down to Georgia and, working with the Georgia Tech folk and the Elberton Granite Association, went to a quarry and cut a slot some 11 ft long, and about 2 ft deep to demonstrate that high pressure waterjets were a practical tool for use in the quarries. The technology has since transitioned into use around the world, and we carved the MS&T Stonehenge out of Elberton Granite (with water). It left me with a pleasant memory of the folks that deal with Earth Science down at GIT.

This week James Stafford, who runs the Oilprice.com web site contacted me to ask if I wanted to run an interview that they had conducted with Dr. Judith Curry, who is now the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. Dr. Curry writes the discussions on climate change at her Website Climate, Etc. The original interview can be found at Oilprice.com. I am glad to reproduce it here.

. . . . . . . . .
OilPrice.com: What are your personal beliefs on climate change? The causes and how serious a threat climate change is to the continued existence of society as we know it.

Dr. Curry: The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. The most recent IPCC assessment report states: "Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don't think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.

As I stated in my testimony last year: "Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation."

OilPrice.com: You have said in the past that you were troubled by the lack of cooperation between organizations studying climate change, and that you want to see more transparency with the data collected. How do you suggest we encourage/force transparency and collaboration?

Judith Curry: We are seeing some positive steps in this regard. Government agencies that fund climate research are working to develop better databases. Perhaps of greatest interest is the effort being undertaken by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which is a (mostly) privately funded effort to compile and document a new data base on surface temperatures, in a completely open and transparent way.

OilPrice.com: Do you feel climatologists should be putting more effort into determining the effect of the sun on our climate? As the IPCC primarily focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change – Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated?

Judith Curry: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), and there is a lively debate underway on interpreting the recent satellite data record, reconstructing past solar variability, and predicting the solar variability over the 21st century. Nearly all of the solar scientists are predicting some solar cooling in the next century, but the magnitude of the possible or likely cooling is hotly debated and highly uncertain.

OilPrice.com: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.

Judith Curry: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding. Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.

OilPrice.com: What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?

Judith Curry: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart' way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible' evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report. As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2.

OilPrice.com: There has been quite a bit of talk recently on geo-engineering with entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson pushing for a "plan B" which utilizes geo-engineering to manipulate the environment in order to cool the atmosphere. Geo-engineering could be much cheaper than reducing emissions, and also much quicker to produce results and scientists are lobbying governments and international organizations for funds to experiment with various approaches, such as fertilizing the oceans or spraying reflective particles and chemicals into the upper atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight and heat back into space. What are your thoughts on geo-engineering? Is it a realistic solution to solving climate change or is it a possible red herring?

Judith Curry: With regards to geo-engineering, there are two major concerns. The first is whether the technologies will actually work, in terms of having the anticipated impact on the climate. The second is the possibility of unintended consequences of the geoengineering.

OilPrice.com: You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics. Even going so far as to say: "It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus."
Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function?

Judith Curry: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Lets see what the next assessment report comes up with. But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists' time.

OilPrice.com: Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns?

Judith Curry: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost.

OilPrice.com: What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change?

Judith Curry: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn't worked, for a variety of reasons. There are a range of possible policy options, and we need to have a real discussion that looks at the costs, benefits and unintended consequences of each. Successful solutions are more likely to be regional in nature than global.

OilPrice.com: I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that I thought I'd get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments: Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy. Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.

Judith Curry: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.

OilPrice.com: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen's terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can't agree on the exact answers?

Judith Curry: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus. We haven't done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement

OilPrice.com: What resources would you recommend to people who wish to get a balanced and objective view on climate science and climate change.

Judith Curry: There is no simple way to get a balanced and objective view, since there are so many different perspectives. I think my blog Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com is a good forum for getting a sense of these different perspectives.

Interview by. James Stafford, Editor Oilprice.com
Note that both sites appear on this site's blog roll.

Predictions of climate change

There are a couple of controversial items that have made it into the mainstream press recently that seem to have stirred a little controversy, and which are worth at least a mention. (And please note that the original post has been updated).

The first was the Opinion piece in the WSJ back in January in which 16 scientists wrote that there was no need to panic over Global Warming. They note, in their letter

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Their letter received a response from a group that included some of the more prominent (and funded) of the climate change advocates, which avoided the discussion of funding, but rather spoke to the eminence of those who are forecasting gloom.

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

(You will note the little unsubtle ad hominem at the end.)

The original authors have now replied. I will quote the reply under the fold, but the first part of their response points out that, for major surgery, it is often best to get a second opinion, and to look at the record of the proposed scientists. They then put up a graph of the accuracy of the IPCC predictions for temperature rise, which I thought worth repeating.

IPCC projections for temperature rise, against reality. (WSJ)

UPDATE There is a response to the more recent letter on RealClimate which complains that the WSJ plot does not include error bars, and that, when those are included, that recent temperature plots fall within the range of the predicted models. I have appended that plot to the end of this post.

Te response begins thus:

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. . . . . . . . . .In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure.

They point out that the heat that was to have raised the temperature has now been suggested as having gone, instead, into the oceans, but point out that there is no evidence to sustain that theory.

They note that the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age (for which there is much evidence) and prior to the LIA there was the Medieval Warming Period, and before it the Holocene Climate Optimum, neither of which can have been caused by greenhouse gases but which instead point to a natural cycling of temperature, which current science has not disproved as a cause of the current warming period. And they also express concern about the statement that "decarbonization would drive decades of economic growth."

Of course a wind farm, or solar farm employs significantly less workers than a coal mine (though arguably more than an oil or gas well - though not if one includes the refineries - since when it gets to power station levels both should surely balance out). I rather suspect that this is not the end of the discussion, and that the debate is starting to get a little more public exposure than it has been able to achieve in the past.

In passing I should note the small furor about the release of some of the documents from the Heartland Institute, mastered by one Peter Gleick, who was a MacArthur Fellow, has confessed to dishonestly obtaining and then releasing them. Not apparently that this is stopping the climate change advocates from pointing out the money that the Heartland Foundation has (though virtually none report on the relatively roughly hundredfold larger size of the sums of money being put into work that advocates climate change - but with money comes power and access, and the Heartland group has much less). I guess just because you're a recognized genius doesn't mean that you can't do stupid things.

However, the other thing that is worth a comment is that there seems to be a growing recognition that biofuels may not be the savior of the atmosphere that they have been purported to be. Apparently the Friends of the Earth have issued a report which indicates that switching to biofuels won't have much effect on cleaning up the air, in fact the switch may make things worse. At the same time the switch may cost drivers in Europe something on the order of $24 billion a year. And in the process of looking into the topic there is another new report (unfortunately behind a paywall) which suggests that much of this was known before the regulations were put in. Bishop Hill has a post on the report, which suggests that some un-named, but central and powerful individual, was able to manipulate the EU into making the moves that have led to the adoption of the 10% biofuel requirement, without adequate consideration of the evidence. Apparently none of the non-supportive data was made available. I wonder why that sounds familiar?

And in passing, and closure, I wrote, in the past about Dr. Hansen's predictions of global warming that were one of the seminal events that got the climate change movement the financial success that it has since achieved. It is interesting to take the graph he used, and add some of the data from the plot above. It would appear that more than one computer model has been falsified. Because Dr. Hansen's models seem to use a different zero, I have slightly adjusted the values from the curve above to extend the data on actual temperatures relative to those predicted. You can see that they are starting to fall below the values that Dr. Hansen predicted would only be achieved if there was a radical reduction in carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases - which hasn't happened, and so would perhaps indicate that the effects of said gases are less than he was predicting.

Projected temperature rise anticipated by Dr Hansen (Dire Predictions)

The plot which RealClimate have used as a rebuttal is this one.

Real Climate plot showing the error bars that they state exist for the models.

It is an interesting point though since all the model error bars are conflated makes it difficult to see how much validity there is to the argument.

Incidentally Profesor Lindzen gave an excellent talk (pdf) at the Houses of Parliament in the UK the other day. It got favorable coverage in the Independent.

UPDATE: There have been a couple of posts over at Watts Up With That? (WUWT) that provide better versions of the plots than the one I gave above. The first points to a presentation by Dr. Evans, which contains this plot:

Temperatures as measured by satellite against Dr. Hansen's predictions in 1988.

The other compares the IPCC predictions with actual temperature data, and quotes a post by Clive Best, that contains this plot:

IPCC predictions of long-term temperature change.

The Delinquent Teenager - the IPCC and the WWF

I mentioned last week that Donna Laframboise has just written a new book with the lengthy title “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert”, but which, for this post I will shorten to “The DT”. The book is a fascinating dénouement of the reality of the structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC issues reports which it describes as:

an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change.

Four reports have been issued to date, with work ongoing on the fifth, which is referred to as the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and which will be released in the 2013/2014 timeframe. The book deals with the way in which the current report, AR4, released in 2007, and which might be considered the “Climate Bible” (Donna’s words) was compiled, and the makeup of the writing teams for AR5.

The work is widely reported as being that of the world’s experts in the different aspects of climate, and its impacts, with the assessment reports bringing those ideas together under the supervision of panels of additional experts in the various fields. Thus it is claimed to summarize the opinions of thousands of scientists and to mark the quintessence of thinking on the state-of-knowledge. With that reputation it is quoted as the justifying document for a wide ranging set of governmental actions around the globe, including the move by the EPA to control Greenhouse Gases, and for example, the moves in Europe to restrict the use of coal in power stations and to justify the increase in investment in wind and solar energy technologies.

But that curtain of respectability based on the “authority” of the authors has been shattered through the revelations of the book. And while it should be noted that many of the individual facts have been discussed in the past, they have never been chained together to shake the edifice so thoroughly and justifiably as is done here.

There are, of course, those who will denigrate the work, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has issued a press release in which if “refutes ‘ludicrous’ claims’ that it infiltrated the IPCC. However, the power of the book comes in the detail that allows me to look up the role of the WWF. Chapter 4 of the report of Working Group 2 deals with species extinctions, and it has five of the 10 most senior personnel affiliated with the WWF. The WWF has, as Donna notes (and details) worked to persuade IPCC authors to join one of its panels, and she goes on (in footnote 31-5) to list 78 IPCC personnel who have thus become involved. (Also on her Website). The facts deny the WWF protestations.

But it is in the revealed mediocrity and mendacious nature of the reports themselves that The DT is most disturbing. Rather than relying purely on the skilled knowledge of the world’s experts, and their papers, as the IPCC claims is the practice, considerably less upright behavior is documented throughout the book. Very junior scientists are recruited to draft significant portions of the material, and many documents used turn out to be from non-peer-reviewed sources. It is not that I am necessarily impressed with “peer review”, as an academic I have very mixed feelings about those who consider that nothing is established until it is in a peer-reviewed publication – despite physical evidence or other real world experience - but if you claim that the material is peer-reviewed and as is shown here it is not, then you are at best proven unreliable. The actions of the “Team” in filtering papers that try to get into such journals, and the consequences to those who doubt the “Climate Bible” and the editors who publish them are now well documented in books such as Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, and the Mosher and Fuller book “Climategate: the CRUtape letters” . The "gatekeepers" to the journals are working hard to ensure that only their views are heard, thus the value of these books.

The DT illustrates, for example, the actions of Kevin Trenberth, who with little documented background knowledge in the area of the possible effects of climate change on hurricane intensity, led that chapter of the Climate Bible, and in the process over-rode the expert knowledge of Chris Landsea, who had commented “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and hurricane frequency and intensity.” (The full e-mail with this objection is a Webcite within the electronic version of the DT).

This really is a highly informative, well documented look at the IPCC which deserves wide distribution, and it should be read by all those who cite the IPCC as justification for a multiplicity of processes. Sadly to say, I rather doubt that it will get the hearing and the proper respect that is its due. What has become evident over time is that the pathways to “getting the word out” lies through a band of “environmental reporters” who would not have work if there were no “environmental crisis.” Rather than review opposing viewpoints or disquieting information, such as that found in this book, their practice has been to ignore the message in the hope that it will go away. After a while they can then say “oh, but it was brought up, and really it was but a storm in a teacup!” They then move on, blissful in their disregard for anything but to maintain a status quo that keeps them gainfully (???) employed.

I would however suggest that it is well worth taking the time to understand what foundation the IPCC is built on, because there is, in all things “ a time when all things come to those who wait.” And as the ball of that discontent grows you will be able to understand both its context, but also what other legs of straw will also fall, in time, as the edifice crumbles. This is a worthy beginning to that eventual result. It is unfortunate that the world could not hold out for a change in IPCC structure, that would allow the true picture to emerge, but as the book shows, the powers that are entrenched have their own agenda, and the controls to maintain it . . . for the present.

A new book and the temperatures in the Mountains

One of the many significant salient points that Donna Laframboise makes in her new book on the IPCC lies in the predilection of the IPCC authors to rely on computer modeling over factual data. I will probably have more to say on this in my planned review of the book (which so far is fascinating to read and damning in the details) once I finish it, but it does suggest that posts such as these on the actual variations in US temperatures over the past century will languish in outer darkness – oh, well!!

To recap where we are, after looking at the temperatures of the individual contiguous states of the American Union, I have started to look at regional changes and to compare them. A significant drop of around four degrees Fahrenheit that occurred between 1950 and 1965 along the Eastern Seaboard, and which inter alia led to a southern migration of the black-capped chickadee, has since been reversed in the warming of that region post-1965. In contrast in the middle of the country there has been sensibly no warming trend since 1895 (which might explain why the Governor of Texas finds it harder to believe in global warming, since his state hasn’t seen any).

Yet on the West Coast the trends show a relatively consistent increase in temperature since 1895. And so the next place to look is to see what happened in those states that lie along the Rockies and provide the mountainous barrier between the West and the Middle. In the following post I am going to derive this graph, and comment along the way as I get there.

Average variation in time for four regions of the country, with the results adjusted as shown to separate the curves, and show them in order (bottom to top) from West to East.

For this exercise I am going to include Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico . I have previously used both the homogenized data from the USHCN and the Time of Observation corrected (TOBS) data, with a preference for the latter since, as I noted with the individual state evaluations, it has shown a consistently better correlation across the states with latitude and elevation than the data after manipulation.

Combining first the average temperatures for the states, using the homogenized data, one gets a relatively flat curve, but one with a decided kick over the last thirty years, the sign that many consider the marker for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Average of the state temperatures for the Mountain Region, averaging the values for the different states in the region.

However, before there is much comment on this, it should be noted (when this is compared with the figure above it) that that trend is not as clear in the four regions as I ultimately graphed them. But before getting to that let me just put up a set of comparison graphs, using the USHCN homogenized data, to show that the temperatures of the eight states that I looked at appear to vary relatively consistently. By setting them one above the other it should be easier to cross-compare.




These are relatively consistent, though they appear to smooth a bit with movement south, but to get back to that kick in the end of the plots. As you may know, and I have commented in the individual state plots, the USHCN data is “homogenized” from the raw data. When one takes the average of this “manipulation” and subtracts the Time of Observation corrected values from it, then one gets this curve as the average change made by the climate scientists in reporting the values for the stations in the evaluation (all 233 of them).

Difference between the average USHCN homogenized temperatures and the raw temperature averages, as corrected for time of observation (the TOBS values).

Given that, the rest of the analysis will go back to using the TOBS values. Firstly this changes the average a little:

Average temperatures for the Mountain states, using the Time of Observation corrected raw data.

The change in the slope of the curve drops the rise in temperature per century from 1.7 deg F to 1.08 deg F.

However this curve was obtained by just averaging the average state temperatures, there are varying numbers of stations and varying areas for the different states. When one weights the value by the relative number of stations in the state (equivalent to averaging all the stations in the region), then one gets:

Average temperatures for the Mountain states, using the Time of Observation corrected raw data and averaging the 233 stations in the region.

In each state, the area that each station “covers” (i.e. the area of the state divided by the number of stations) varies from 8,500 sq miles in Nevada, to 2,123 sq miles in Utah. To try and account for this I have weighted the state values by the areas of the states, and this gives this plot:

Average temperatures for the Mountain states, using the Time of Observation corrected raw data and weighting the state averages by the area of the state.

With this plot the steadily increasing temperature suggested in the USHCN plot does not appear as evident, and the temperatures since about 1990 seem relatively steady.

So how do the regional values now compare?

Comparison of average temperatures for the different regions of the United States (as I have defined them)

Obviously the mountain temperatures are lower than those of the other regions given that there is a fall in temperature with elevation. For the combined region this looks like this:

Variation in state temperature as a function of average station elevation in the state.

The r-squared value is much lower for this than it is for the individual stations in the region, and so I will have to look at the effects of latitude, elevation and population separately.

But to conclude I wanted to see how the temperature patterns changed across the country, and the overlay of the regional temperatures made that a little difficult to see, so I “shifted” the curves by adding and subtracting temperatures from each set, so that the comparison of shapes could be made, and that is where we came in:

Average variation in time for four regions of the country, with the results adjusted as shown to separate the curves, and show them in order (bottom to top) from West to East.

Will Renewable Energy Rescue Us All - BP and the IPCC reviews

The people of the world are going to continue to use energy. The fundamental question that this future reality poses relates to the sources from which the energy will be produced. The vast majority of the current energy supply comes from fossil fuels, but, whether it is because of the belief that fossil fuels are going to be the cause of calamitous climate change, or because of the belief that viable production of fossil fuels cannot be sustained at increasing rate, there is a recognition that alternate and sustainable forms of energy are going to have to play an increasing role in the energy mix in that future. However the rate at which those energy supplies are brought into the mix, and the levels that they can achieve are subject to considerable discussion.

The 2011 BP Statistical Review of World Energy in recognizing this, added two new sets of information to their 2011 review of fuel use around the world. The first of these documents the amount of commercial electricity that comes from renewable sources, and the second covers the amount of biofuel that is produced each year. Looking at the amount of electricity generated, the greatest renewable source is currently hydro-electricity, for which BP reports:

Rising use of hydro-electricity around the World in million tons of oil equivalent (divide by 50 to get a rough measure of the equivalent in mb/d) (BP Statistical Review)

The report notes that the increase in the last year, at 5.3% this is twice the historical average, has come mainly through growth in the Asia Pacific region. Note also that this is for electricity generation, Biomass contributes more enery, but a lot is burned directly for heat.

NOTE THAT THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED

Other forms of electricity generation have also grown:

Growth in the supply of electricity from renewable sources in million tons of oil equivalent (BP Statistical Review)

The greatest growth has been in Europe, and the overall trend would appear encouraging. In terms of the liquid fuels that must be produced to replace petroleum products in transportation BP shows that ethanol is being most actively developed in the Americas, while in Europe the emphasis is on biodiesel. Combined the growth over the last decade is shown as follows:

Biofuel production in millions of tons of oil equivalent (again divide by 50 to turn this into a rough estimate in mbd). (BP Statistical Review)

To put these numbers into context, however, one needs to recognize how small a portion of the global supply that these supplies now meet. With a global demand getting close to 90 mbd, a biofuel supply that is just over 1 mbd is not currently making much impact, although if the growth rate of 13.8% in 2010, were to be sustained, it could start to have an impact in a few years.

If one looks at the global contribution to power, bearing in mind that the category of biomass includes everything from trees, through brush wood to dung requires some degree of husbandry to be sustainable, the distance that these technologies must grow before they are significant contributors can be realized.

Relative contribution of different energy sources to global power in 2008 (IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy )

The BP review, while providing a widely referenced source of statistics about energy use at present, and in the past, does not cover future use, however. And the quantity of renewable energy that will be available plays a critical part in helping to plan for that future. It is thus of interest to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released a report on Renewable Energy. In the summary press release, the report is cited as showing how up to 77% of global energy could be achieved from renewable sources by 2050.

The report has already received some significant criticism but since it is useful to know how one can grow renewable energy to that level, that fast, I did follow up on one of the references. Steve McIntyre notes that it can be traced back initially to Chapter 10 of the report, and from there back to a paper that admits to the 77% only being achievable if nuclear power is shut down, no CCS power plants are built and there are drastic steps forward in the efficient use of energy. Since those are likely unrealistic I’m not going to chase after that. But what I do find interesting is where the IPCC anticipate that the growth will likely come from. And that can be found in this couple of charts, showing the progress to 2030, and then that achieved by 2050.

Anticipated growth in renewable energy sources to supplies in 2030 and 2050 (For comparative purposes the global electricity demand in 2008 is cited as 61 EJ/yrear). (IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy)

The IPCC report notes that in order for any meaningful progress to be made there must be significant policy changes as well as moves to ensure the adequate levels of innovation will be achieved that are required to make the progress assumed. (Which is in my book assuming that one can legislate technology, which as we have seen with the cellulosic ethanol story is not necessarily so). But one should also be cautious about the speed of politicial change. There is a lesson, for example, that has just emerged from the UK.

Back in 2007 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in the UK commissioned a study on the coming of peak oil that has just been released, and which may explain the complacency of the UK Government. That report noted that while the UK is less dependant on oil to fuel its economy than other OECD nations, the oil that it does use is difficult to replace since it fuels some 70% of national transportation. The report looked at various time frames for peak oil (pre-2010; 2010 to 2015; mid 2020’s; late 2030’s) and concluded that only the first two would pose a problem. By increasing production from the FSU countries and increasing investment in production to meet demand the report justified the medium and long term scenarios. (However at the same time the report saw price remaining around $60/bbl, which is unrealistic already). The conclusions included the following:

•While global reserves are plentiful, it is clear that existing fields are maturing, the rate of investment in new and existing production is being slowed down by bottlenecks, the economic downturn and financial crisis and that alternative technologies to oil will take a long time to develop and deploy at scale;
•The UK economy would be initially relatively robust to higher prices; however, if peak oil happens before 2015 there would be negative economic consequences for some of the main importers of UK goods and services resulting in a negative impact on the UK economy in the longer term. If the peak happens later, it would be possible to mitigate the impact through greater end-use efficiency and the production of sufficient quantities alternative liquid fuels.
•Given the uncertainties around the timing of peak oil and its implications for the UK, there are no obvious additional policies the UK government should pursue to minimise the likelihood of a 'peak oil' scenario and to be prepared to mitigate its impacts in addition to those already in place.

In reviewing changes since the initial report, the summary notes that while not believing in a near term “peak” the authors do not preclude a risk of a supply crunch.

The Guardian article notes that the DECC minister is now starting to have a bit of a re-think. This is driven, apparently, by the rising concerns in industry about the growing signs that all in not as well in petroleum supply as the DECC report would have it. But the speed of bureaucratic change in thought means that it has taken four years to realize that there might be a problem. It doesn’t bode well for the adoption of forward thinking strategies. Unfortunately it doesn’t bode well for assuring that the world has enough energy for its needs either.

UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a post on the relatively incestuous relationship between those authoring the report, the trade associations for renewable energy in Europe and the UE management. Not that I am condoning that it any way, but it does give a measure of what may very well define the outer edges of what, if all buttons were pressed, might be achievable. However even the little that I have read and commented on shows that it is a hopelessly optimistic view of what can be achieved within the time frames assigned, and as a result Government which believes their predictions, and the populations that trust the Governments to take care of them, are going to be significantly dis-served.

The IPCC mess - like a smoldering coal fire

The computer models used to project future temperatures also don't include this feature because it remains poorly understood.

The feature is upper atmosphere water vapor, and as an article in the Houston Chronicle from which the quote comes notes, recent work reported in Science shows:

” Water vapor in this narrow region really packs a wallop, and has a much bigger impact on climate than if you were to increase water vapor levels at a level higher up,” said the study's lead author, Susan Solomon, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

During the 1980s and 1990s, levels of water vapor in the stratosphere rose quite dramatically, but in 2000 they suddenly dropped.

The effect of this change is reported to be a change of some 25% to 30% on global surface warming. Now the argument is apparently that had the water vapor level not dropped, then the increasing levels of carbon dioxide would have continued to raise global temperatures. What that argument fails to do is read the abstract, let alone the paper, – which says that:

More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.

In other words the increase in water vapor before 2000 was causing more warming than would have been the case without it. But the quote at the top is the most pertinent – this is just one of the factors that appear to influence climate that are not in the models. Which leaves one wondering, yet again, why the models have been given such credence when they are obviously not predicting what is happening.


On the other side of the Atlantic the Times has caught the IPCC chief in a lie apparently, and sentiment seems to be growing over not only the pecuniary advantage he seems to have taken of his position but also the lack of scrutiny of sources of information for the last report.

Taking Dr. Pachauri’s lie first, it appears that he was told in November that the IPCC report on glaciers in the Himalayas – which reported on their likely disappearance by 2035, was wrong, and not, as he claimed, in the last few days. What is equally of concern is that there was an investigation of the melting of the glaciers in 2004, headed by Gwyn Rees, which was then published in Hydrological Processes. He has since, on several occasions, had to rebut Syed Hasnain, who was responsible for the glacier melting claim in the IPCC report, but who had signed off on the conclusions of the report, at the time it was written. Specifically:

In 2004, Rees had assumed the rapid-melt claims would not be repeated, but in May that year Hasnain gave an interview to New Scientist suggesting the UK-funded study had confirmed his claims of rapid glacier melt.

In it he said: “Global warming has already increased glacier melting by up to 30%. After 40 years, most glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”

A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.

In fact the report said that suggestions that the glaciers would melt soon would seem unfounded. Yet Syed Hasnain has helped Dr Pachauri’s company now get millions of dollars to study a problem that he knew did not exist, and now works for the company.

Sadly as the blinkers fall off the eyes of a press that has, for too long, assumed the climate change distorters could do no wrong, more evidence is coming to the fore that what the report was based on was drawn much more from involved sources, such as the WWF, rather than the peer-reviewed scientific articles that were the claim.

Donna Laframboise has found eight references in the IPCC text to Greenpeace literature being used, in some cases as the sole reference for the global impacts caused by greenhouse gases. She had earlier shown the influence of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on the document.

For example, a WWF report is cited twice on this page as the only supporting proof of IPCC statements about coastal developments in Latin America. A WWF report is referenced twice by the IPCC's Working Group II in its concluding statements. There, the IPCC depends on the WWF to define what the global average per capita "ecological footprint" is compared to the ecological footprint of central and Eastern Europe.

The fact that some of the activities of the CRU are viewed as criminal is now being faced by the University of East Anglia. The spreading impact of this will continue to rebound, and well-meaning comments are non-helpful at best, whether by the Prince of Wales (who is the patron of the School of Environmental Science) or the President of the United States who, in his state-of-the-Union address said about the climate and energy:

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. . . . . . They're (Germany and India) making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.

which is non-controversial, and then

Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched*. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Well perhaps if we relied a bit more on the scientific experts and less on Greenpeace, and let opposing points of view have better access to the journals, and perhaps some funding, rather than trying to suppress and obliterate them, we might be closer to the truth on these issues.

The main press in the UK is slowly swinging around to the position that there is something rotten in the climate science house, it is surprising how little dent the story has made yet in the American press. But that may change.

End note: I sat down to write a book review of “Climategate – the CRUtape letters” (which I recommend highly) but somehow the above captured my fingers. I’ll have the book review later, and one on “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, that I just got today (harder to get in the US since it is only published, to date, in the UK).

* Wow! We have a patent (U.S. Patent 5,037,431, 1990) on that. (but I bet it wasn't our technique he meant).

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.