ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING NEWSLETTER

13 JAN. 2014 Please be aware any Newsletter URL ending in 020701.pdf and 020610.pdf are available for downloading only during the six days following the date of the edition. If you need older URLs contact George at ghh@att.net. Please Note: This newsletter contains articles that offer differing points of view regarding climate change, energy and other environmental issues. Any opinions expressed in this publication are the responses of the readers alone and do not represent the positions of the Environmental Engineering Division or the ASME. George Holliday This week's edition includes: 1) ENVIRONMENT – A. DOE STANDS BY 'SOCIAL COST OF CARBON' The Department of Energy rejected a petition by Landmark Legal Foundation calling for the removal of the "social cost of carbon" provision from an efficiency rule for microwave ovens. The provision raises the standard cost of carbon from $21 to $35 per metric ton and could affect other regulations. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/194154-doe-wont-reconsider-microwave-efficiency-rule

B. ASME IS DEVELOPING AN ASME ENERGY FORUM

san diego convention center San Diego, Ca, USA March 17-19 2014

Executive Advisory Committee: The Executive Advisory Committee for ASME Energy Forum Live – Oil & Gas includes senior members from Shell Exploration & Production, Draper Laboratory/Cambridge Research and Technology LLC, Baker Hughes, Stewart & Stevenson, BP Exploration, and ASME. Doreen Chin, Co-Chair Shell Exploration & Production Co.

Martin Rylance, Co-Chair BP Julio Guerrero Draper Laboratory, Cambridge Research and Technology L.L.C. Satya Gupta Baker Hughes Pressure Pumping Rustom Mody Baker Hughes, Inc. Jared Oehring Stewart & Stevenson Raj Manchanda ASME Program Committee: Phil Grossweiler, Program Committee Chair M&H Blake Burnette, Poster Committee Chair Baker Hughes Pressure Pumping David Paradis Weir Oil and Gas Pressure Pumping Arnold Feldman  

C. MSM FINALLY GETS THAT THE SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD HAS FLIPPED Posted on December 30, 2013 by Anthony Watts While we’ve known about this for quite some time at WUWT, going back to August 2013, the story is now starting to make the rounds in the MSM. And, NASA has created a cool visualization of the event. Video follows. From the NASA video description: This visualization shows the position of the sun’s magnetic fields from January 1997 to December 2013. The field lines swarm with activity: The magenta lines show where the sun’s overall field is negative and the green lines show where it is positive. A region with more electrons is negative, the region with less is labeled positive. Additional gray lines represent areas of local magnetic variation. The entire sun’s magnetic polarity, flips approximately every 11 years — though sometimes it takes quite a bit longer — and defines what’s known as the solar cycle. The visualization shows how in 1997, the sun shows the positive polarity on the top, and the negative polarity on the bottom. Over the next 12 years, each set of lines is seen to creep toward the opposite pole eventually showing a complete flip. By the end of the movie, each set of lines are working their way back to show a positive polarity on the top to complete the full 22 year magnetic solar cycle. At the height of each magnetic flip, the sun goes through periods of more solar activity, during which there are more sunspots, and more eruptive events such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, or CMEs. The point in time with the most sunspots is called solar maximum. Credit: NASA/GSFC/PFSS http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/30/msm-finally-gets-that-the-suns-magnetic-field-has-flipped/

D. EPA RELEASES FINAL RULE ON CARBON CAPTURE The Environmental Protection Agency has finalized its regulations that cover the implementation of carbon capture and sequestration technology. The rule will be published today in the Federal Register. "EPA expects that this amendment will substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with identifying these [carbon dioxide] streams under RCRA subtitle C, and will also facilitate the deployment of (geologic sequestration) by providing additional regulatory certainty," according to the rule. http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energy-environment/194276-epa-publishes-carbon-capture-regs http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2014‐01‐03/pdf/2013‐31246.pdf 

E. HOW THE EPA STICKS MINERS WITH A MOTHERLODE OF REGULATION The years-long wait for mining permits in the U.S. is the worst in the world.

By Daniel McGroarty On Dec. 13, the proposed Rosemont Copper project in southwestern Arizona—which would produce about one-tenth of all the copper in the U.S. every year—got the green light from the U.S. Forest Service to begin operations. It was a long time coming—more than seven years after the company presented its mine plan and began the National Environmental Protection Act review process. Then again, since the average time to get a mine permitted in the U.S. is a worst-in-the-world seven-to-10 years, Rosemont's long wait isn't the exception. It's the rule. The Forest Service's approval should be great news for our high-tech economy, powered by copper in, for instance, electric vehicles, smart homes and smartphones (about 10% of an average phone's weight is copper). But that decision is overshadowed by the last remaining—and most formidable—governmental hurdle, the Environmental Protection Agency, the guardian of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Having run the gauntlet of state and local permitting requirements, Rosemont now faces two potentially fatal challenges from the EPA in the final stages of review: either death by a thousand pesky comments or an outright veto. In the bureaucratic equivalent of sticky riot foam—a substance meant to slow and stop people on the street—every few months, a couple of dozen pages furl out from the EPA to Rosemont's managers. Past communications have included the suggestion that the project might jeopardize the leopard frog, or the Gila topminnow, or the water umbrel. One official worry was that the project might impede the opportunity for people to canoe in a desert region where summer temperatures reach 118 degrees. The EPA churns out concerns about potential impacts on 18 miles of streams and threats to the "water quality" of the Davidson Canyon Wash, a single gulch—filled intermittently by rain—in a state with 39,039 rivers and streams. The agency also lets Rosemont know it will be looking at the impacts of mining on air quality—but only after a preliminary process to determine which air-quality standard should apply. Each governmental query receives a Rosemont reply in the never-ending race toward a moving finish line. Even this snail's pace doesn't satisfy antimining advocates. Many environmentalists and anticapitalists (and many critics are both) would like to see the EPA simply short-circuit the review process and veto the mine proposal. After all, the agency has used Section 404(c) of the

Clean Water Act to shut down a mine—famously, the Spruce Mine in West Virginia—even after it had received its operating permit. For the most vocal environmental groups, the EPA is perfectly suited as judge and jury. Jennifer Krill, the director of Earthworks, confirmed in congressional testimony earlier this year that her group has never supported or endorsed a single U.S. mine. The threat of an EPA Clean Water Act veto of various projects hangs over more than $220 billion in economic development, ranging from mines to agriculture and infrastructure projects. Sadly for communities around the proposed mine—about 30 miles southwest of Tucson in an area where unemployment is still stubbornly close to 10%—every day of delay means a longer wait for much-needed jobs, which would funnel much-needed revenue into local tax coffers. Mothers and fathers struggling to support their families may feel endangered, but unlike the leopard frog, they're not on a government list. The nation, meanwhile, is losing the output of a mine with a projected yearly output of more than 100,000 metric tons. That's Arizona copper the U.S. wouldn't need to import from abroad, feeding a negative balance of trade, and providing political and economic leverage to nations that supply the metal we fail to mine ourselves. If we mine fewer metals, won't manufacturing jobs leave the U.S. and go where the metals are? If we don't mine in the U.S.—with arguably the world's most stringent oversight, environmental and safety standards—won't Americans end up importing products made with metals mined in other places under less-stringent standards (if any), leading to far more damage to the environment and the health of the miners? All of these questions are critical to determining whether a mine serves the public good. Surely they must matter to the nation as much as a topminnow does to the EPA. Finally, did Congress pass the National Environmental Protection Act to put in place a means of balancing the benefits of resource extraction with competing public goods? Or did it set up an endless bureaucratic gauntlet designed to delay, derail or economically exhaust mine developers? Seven and a half years on, Rosemont Copper is still waiting for an answer.

2) HEALTH – A. BABESIOSIS, ANAPLASMOSIS - USA: (MASSACHUSETTS) A ProMED‐mail post <http://www.promedmail.org> ProMED‐mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases <http://www.isid.org> Date: Sun 22 Dec 2013 Source: Cape Cod Times [edited] <http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131222/NEWS/312220338> It wasn't long ago that the tiny deer tick that transmits Lyme disease was seen as dangerous ‐‐ but not a killer. That view is changing. Public health officials report that at least 10 people in Massachusetts died last year [2012] after contracting diseases carried by the freckle‐sized tick [babesia, anaplasma]. 

Health140113

3) SAFETY – A. TWO TRAINS DERAIL IN NORTH DAKOTA,TRIGGERING EVACUATION

By Betsy Morris and Ben Kesling

A massive fireball rises after trains collide west of Casselton, N.D., Monday. Zuma Press A grain train and a crude-oil train traveling on adjacent tracks derailed Monday in North Dakota, sparking a fire and explosions that prompted evacuation warnings. The accident occurred at about 2 p.m. Central Standard Time when a westbound 112-car grain train derailed into a 106-car crude-oil train heading east about a mile from Casselton, N.D., according to BNSF Railway Co., which owned both trains. Fire crews from Casselton and a hazardous-material team from Fargo, about 25 miles away, battled the blaze that engulfed about 21 trains cars, officials said. The Cass County sheriff's office was strongly recommending an evacuation of the city of Casselton, which has a population of about 2,500, and surrounding areas. The National Weather Service was forecasting a shift in the weather that could increase the risk of potential health hazards.There were no injuries, according to the Associated Press. The derailment was the latest mishap this year involving trains carrying crude oil. The rail industry has been concerned about such accidents because multiple tank cars can end up in a "pool fire" that is so hot they can cause other tank cars to catch fire and possibly breach. Regulators are considering stricter rules to make tank cars safer, but they are controversial because they are costly and would be disruptive to the booming crude-by-rail trade.

B. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS FACILITY IN TEXAS CATCHES FIRE An Enterprise Products Partners facility in Morgan's Point, Texas, caught fire on Tuesday, officials said. Two workers suffered minor injuries and received treatment. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/12/31/fire-erupts-at-enterprise-products-facility-near-la-porte/?shared=email&msg=fail

C. FEDS: BAKKEN CRUDE MAY BE MORE FLAMMABLE THAN OTHER CRUDE

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration warned oil producers on Thursday that "the type of crude being transported from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil." The regulator urged oil producers in the Bakken Shale region to "sufficiently degasify" crude oil before transporting the product via tank cars. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/02/us-usa-energy-bakken-idUSBREA010ZI20140102 Editors Note: Why no test the crude instead of talking about it?, It takes only 30 minutes to perform the test.

4. TRANSPORTATION – A. KEYSTONE OPPONENTS URGE STATE DEPT. TO LOOK INTO EMERGENCY OIL SPILL RESPONSE Opponents of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline are urging the State Department to include oil spill response plans in its analysis of the project's safety. The call is in light of the 2010 oil spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River involving Enbridge's pipeline, in which Canadian crude sank to the bottom of the river and created new challenges in oil spill cleanup. TransCanada said it continues to update its safety standards "to ensure we have the latest and most appropriate procedures and technology in place to respond to the unlikely event of a pipeline leak in rivers or other water bodies http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/12/29/keystone-xl-foes-want-focus-on-spill-clean-up/

COMMENTS: A. THE WEEK THAT WAS: 2014-01-04 (JANUARY 4, 2014) By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Re-Format: Starting this week, the order of topics in TWTWhave been re-formatted somewhat. In general, the topics follow this order: science issues, policy issues, then energy issues. As a result, topics such as Questioning European Green are further down in order of presentation than in the past. It is becoming obvious to most but not all (such as the US Navy) that smart drilling has changed the oil and natural gas future for the US, without any assistance from Washington. Thus, articles on oil and natural gas will be fewer. [Smart drilling can be defined as precision horizontal drilling of dense shale, multi-port hydraulic fracturing using sand or ceramics and limited chemicals to keep the fractures open.] Well-life, extraction costs, etc. remain open and articles on such issues will be continued, as well as any sound environmental issues. Based on current reports, extraction costs of oil are above $50 per barrel, significantly above the about $20 per barrel for Saudi Arabia. Developments in offshore drilling, and any (unlikely for now) expansion of drilling on Federal lands will be linked. Transportation remains a major issue; the need for new pipelines is clear. Reports place the estimated transportation costs [including compression and degasification] of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) of about $5 to $6 per 1000 cubic feet, making the feasibility of export from the US to Europe questionable, but export to Asia economically feasible –at least on paper. Developments in these areas will be linked as they occur. ***************** Un-Science or Non-Science? It is becoming increasingly evident that the climate models relied on by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its followers, have failed to predict the current stoppage in global warming, and greatly overestimate warming of areas

such as the tropics. We are seeing an increase in studies on the results of these models, even though they have not been validated, and their projections are failing. The question is how to classify these studies. They are certainly not empirical science, because they impart no empirical knowledge, except to the models themselves. Over 60 years ago, Bertrand Russell had a book published entitled “Unpopular Essays.”He described how he came about the title. In a preface to a prior work, he said that the work should be of interest to the general educated public. Critics took him to task and complained that certain passages were difficult to understand, implying he misled purchasers. He did not wish to be charged with this again. He fully admitted that certain passages in the new work may be difficult for some to understand. Thus, he cannot claim the essays are popular. If not popular, they must be unpopular. Following a similar logic, if the often elaborate computer model exercises do not convey empirical knowledge, they are not science [in the traditional sense].Thus, they are not science, and they must be Un-Science or Non-Science. ***************** Strong Positive Feedback? This week Nature magazine published an article claiming that of the models the authors examined, those that project very high increases temperatures from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) (a strong positive feedback) described the behavior of clouds better than those models that project moderate increases in temperatures from a doubling CO2. The paper was trumpeted to support the usual claims of dire world consequences from the burning of fossil fuels. Upon initial review, it appears that the paper suffers from several inadequacies, including highly selective use of data. But, these will be discussed in the future. What is of particular interest is the logic used. If a climate model describes some phenomena well, it should be preferred to a model that does not. Under ordinary circumstances this would be the choice. But the issue is future temperatures, and there is no reason to assume a model that explains current temperature trends poorly will describe future temperature well. All the models which project high future temperatures are performing poorly against observations. As discussed by Richard Lindzen (TWTW Dec 21, 2013 and elsewhere), climate models and the IPCC procedures are not ordinary circumstances. The concept of falsification is sidestepped and there is no rigorous chain of logical reasoning and experimentation. Simply, because a climate model gets one thing right that does not mean it will get anything else right. As climate modelers have claimed, because the models failed to project the current stoppage in warming and many greatly overestimate current temperature trends, this is not evidence that the climate models have been falsified. Fair enough. Correspondingly, one thing done correctly is not validation. The IPCC and the modelers have created a morass, and they need to find their way out. See links under Un-Science or Non-Science? ***************** Solar Race: According to reports, China’s “Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has announced a list of 134 producers of silicon materials, solar panels and other components of photovoltaic systems as meeting certain conditions, as measured by 2012 production, capacity utilization and technical standards.” The remaining 500 plus companies are being abandoned. They will not be able to get credit lines from financial institutions or any government support. Built largely for the export market, the PV solar industry in China has been facing significant oversupply and financial losses.

Citizens in Western countries that did not join the race with China for 21stcentury energy can be thankful. Those who plan to install solar panels in the future may be facing higher prices, and questionable economics. As it is, photovoltaic solar is a mature industry and needs no subsidies. Is the DOE aware of this? See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind ***************** Bio-Navy: For some in Washington news travels very slowly. The US Navy and the Department of Agriculture have announced their Farm to Fleet program to “make biofuel blends part of regular, operational fuel purchase and use by the military.” The claimed ultimate goal is to have “a secure, stable fuel source, guarding against oil price spikes.”The Secretary of Agriculture stated that “rural America stands ready to provide clean, homegrown energy that increases our military’s energy independence and puts Americans to work.” According to the program’s promoters, biofuels will be available at less than $4 per gallon by 2016. This price remains to be seen. The entire scheme seems to be based on out-of-date concepts. The threat of unprecedented and dangerous global warming is no longer occurring, except in unvalidated climate models. And even the White House recognizes that the dependence on oil from unstable regions in the world is declining. In October, US oil production exceeded imports and some members of Congress are considering introducing legislation removing the ban on oil exports. One can only speculate what will happen to food prices if Middle America were hit with natural disasters such as the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927or the repeated droughts of the 1930s that turned much of the farmland into the Great Dust Bowl. The public will demand more than just ending such wasteful programs, implemented at a time when US oil and natural gas production is increasing dramatically. See link under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy –Other. ***************** Climate Comedy: It’s summer in Antarctic and global warming is happening, so it must be balmy. A group of eco-tourists, journalists, and others, headed by a climate scientist ventured to cruise the Antarctic, following the route of explorer Douglas Mawson in 1911-1914 and to conduct the same experiments his team did. No doubt, the underlying purpose was a publicity opportunity to highlight the dangers of global warming. There was only one slight glitch for this wonderful venture; Antarctic sea ice is not melting according to the approved global warming script. There is more than adequate reporting of the venture. However, the resources that were required to save this “Ship of Fools” would have better served the interest of science elsewhere. The venture, in modern fossil fuel driven vessels, using helicopters, trivializes the planning, fortitude and dangers faced by early polar explorers. See Quote of the Week and links under Climate Comedy? ***************** Number of the Week: 12. Writing in ICECAP, Joseph D’Aleointroduces us to the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale (NESIS), which, since the 1950s, has been used to categorize severe snow storms hitting the Northeast. According to D’Aleo, the worst decade for severe snowstorms was the 1960s with 11 storms so categorized. If the storm that just passed is categorized as severe, which it was in many parts of the Northeast, the total for this decade is now12. And this is only the beginning of the fourth year of the decade. Readers may recall that the 1960s brought many climate alarmists to claim that a new Ice Age is upon us. http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2014/TWTW%201-4-14.pdf

B. W. TEXAS WINDS TO LIGHT UP REGION, AT WHAT COST? (ABOUT 2.3¢/KWHR) A 3,000-mile network of transmission lines designed to bring wind-generated power from West Texas to homes and businesses from Dallas to San Antonio should be fully operational by Tuesday, year’s end. “There is a vast amount of wind energy that will suddenly be accessible to cities across Texas,” said Jeff Clark, executive director of the Wind Coalition, a nonprofit association focused on wind resources throughout the state and the Midwest. Grid operators are on track to have switched on the last of the power lines developed as part of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones initiative, a $6.8 billion effort that began in 2008. These lines eventually will provide pathways for up to 18,500 megawatts of electricity to travel from thousands of turbines — each as tall as a football field is long — on the windswept plains around San Angelo, Abilene and Amarillo, the Texas Public Utility Commission reports. The network also will encourage further development of wind resources, state power planners say. That is especially true in the Panhandle, they say, which had no power transmission link to the rest of Texas prior to completion of the new lines. Texas already leads the nation in wind power with 7,960 turbines, each one with blades of 150 feet or more, capable of generating between 1 and 4 megawatts of electricity. One megawatt is enough to power 500 homes under normal conditions. The state has capacity, under optimal conditions, to generate 12,000 megawatts, more than twice that of No. 2 producer California. The new transmission network expands the power grid enough to allow a 50 percent increase in capacity. That means more of the graceful, 300-ton turbines are likely to spin across the horizon. Price $2 billion higher The $6.8 billion price tag is nearly $2 billion higher than the 2008 estimates when construction began, mostly because it took 600 more miles than planned to navigate tricky terrain and to follow roads and fences rather than cutting directly through the properties of reluctant landowners. Env140113

C. WIND POWER ADVOCATES ARE CALM AS TAX CREDIT DIES By Jennifer A. Dlouhy WASHINGTON — The stroke of midnight Tuesday marked not just the end of 2013, but also the death of a popular tax credit that has helped finance wind farms and other renewable energy projects across the U.S. The production tax credit expired without any immediate prospects for renewal. But unlike previous years, supporters aren’t singing dirges just yet; instead, they hope to bring the tax incentive back to life sometime in 2014. The renewable energy production tax credit allows project owners to reduce their tax bills by 2.3 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce over a 10-year period. But the 21-yearold credit has sputtered in and out of existence as Congress let it expire at least four times only to renew it later (as little as one day afterward in January 2013).

The on-again, off-again scenario has in the past halted development of renewable energy projects and prompted some manufacturers to abandon the field altogether. And it traditionally has inspired a frenzy of lobbying on Capitol Hill andconstruction work in the field, as renewable project developers begged lawmakers not to let the credit lapse and rushed to get projects in operation before the Dec. 31 deadline. Supporters of the tax credit said that the New Year’s Eve expiration used to be like staring over the edge of a cliff. But changes made by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service in 2013 mean the expiration is just the crest of a long downward slope. Now, a developer can take the credit as long as it incurred 5 percent of total capital costs on a qualifying renewable energy project before the credit expired — a change from previous rules that required the facilities to be operating first. Developers have been inking deals hastily before year’s end to qualify, but any construction work can continue well beyond the singing of “Auld Lang Syne.” As long as developers put 5 percent deposits down on qualifying renewable energy projects initiated in 2013, they have until 2015 at least to put the facilities in service and claim the credit over the following 10 years. It takes time Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association, said that allowing projects that started in 2013 to claim the credit acknowledges the 18-24 month timeline of wind projects. The production tax credit is available for an array of renewable power projects, including those involving geothermal, solar and marine power. But it especially has been a boon to the wind industry , which saw utilities sign a record number of power purchase agreements in 2013. Gramlich says that’s evidence that the production tax credit is effective. The opponents But critics say the credit has outlived its usefulness. In a letter to congressional tax-writers, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., and 53 other lawmakers said the credit has become more valuable to wind producers than the electricity they generate. Although Congress historically has renewed the production tax credit in a single stroke along with other expiring tax provisions as part of what they call an “extenders package,” lawmakers in 2013 held off because of the prospect of a bigger tax overhaul in 2014. A straight renewal of the tax credit or broader changes could come as part of fundamental tax reform. Single-credit approach Sen. Max Baucus,the chairman of the Finance Committee, recently unveiled his plan eventually to replace the production tax credit and alternative fuel incentives with a single credit that rewards clean energy. But President Barack Obama has nominated Baucus to be the U.S. ambassador to China, and it is unclear whether the Montana Democrat’s proposal could gain much traction without him to spearhead it. Obama has asked Congress to extend the tax credit permanently at a price tag of $24.7 billion over the next 10 years. Even though they have some short-term certainty, Gramlich said the wind industry “still faces uncertainty in the medium and long term and needs Congress to address that” in 2014. “Ultimately,” he added, “our industry will begin to feel the impacts of uncertainty in 2014.” jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com  twitter.com/jendlouhyhc   Michael Paulsen / Houston Chronicle file

Congress held off in 2013 on consideration of the wind production tax credit because of the prospect of a bigger tax overhaul in 2014.

D. ANALYSIS: ARGUMENTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE TO INTENSIFY IN 2014 Climate change arguments are set to intensify next year as Republicans continue to campaign against President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan, observers say. Those disputing the administration's climate regulations will give their opinions before the Environmental Protection Agency decides on final standards on reducing carbon pollution from power plants in June. Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will keep calling for oversight hearings on the climate plan next year, said Sen. David Vitter, R-La http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/194082-climate-change-debate-to-dominate-agenda-in-2014

E. MOST AMERICANS HAVE LITTLE IDEA ABOUT FRACKING, RESEARCH FINDS A recent study by researchers from Yale, George Mason and Oregon State universities found that a majority of Americans have little or no knowledge about hydraulic fracturing. Out of 1,061 respondents, more than 50% said they do not know much about fracking, while almost 60% have no opinion about it. "The fact that half of the people we surveyed know little if anything about fracking suggests that there may be an opportunity to educate the American citizenry in a nonpartisan way about this important issue," said Hilary Boudet, lead author of the study. Star-Tribune (Casper, Wyo.) (tiered subscription model)

F.  NASA SATELLITE DATA CONTRADICT ‘WARMEST NOVEMBER’ CLAIMS Global warming activists claim this November was the warmest on record, yet NASA and NOAA satellite data show temperatures were only modestly warmer than average. The discrepancy highlights global warming activists’ desire to have not only their own opinions, but their own facts as well. NASA satellite instruments report November 2013 was merely the ninth warmest since 1979, when NASA satellites first began uniformly measuring Earth’s atmospheric temperatures. Microwave sounders aboard NOAA satellites report November 2013 was merely the 16th warmest since 1979. The NASA and NOAA satellite instruments differ in the fine details of how they determine global temperatures. NASA satellite instruments, for example, report average temperatures in atmospheric layers while NOAA satellite instruments measure temperatures at specific levels. The NASA and NOAA satellite instruments each measure temperatures precisely and globally, and they each show temperatures warming more slowly than the warming claimed by overseers of NASA and NOAA’s surface temperature reports. The NASA and NOAA surface temperature reports claim a more pronounced warming trend even though the surface temperature measurements themselves show only modest warming. Global warming activists who oversee the surface temperature data employ a variety of means to lower historical temperature readings below the raw measurements while raising recent and

current temperatures above the raw measurements. The result is a manufactured rapid warming trend that defies the satellite data and the raw surface temperature data. Steve Goddard’s Real Science website shows the satellite temperature reports for November 2013 compared to alarmist claims that November 2013 was the warmest November on record. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/what-dies-nasa-stand-for-anyway/  

G. SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA AND ANOMALY

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA AND ANOMALY Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Anomaly J Frank

H. UNDERSTANDING THE USEFULNESS AND TRAPS OF COMPUTER MODELS Climate scientist Judith Curry has posted on her website excerpts from a very interesting article on the usefulness and shortcomings of computer models, especially regarding climate predictions. The article, published in aeon magazine, reminds readers that climate change models

rely on key climate assumptions that are not very well understood. While a computer simulation may add an apparent weight of authority to a prediction, the prediction and the supporting computer simulation are only as authoritative as their underlying assumptions. http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/16/how-far-should-we-trust-models/

I. SEA LEVEL RISE PUT IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE Alarmist claims of rising sea levels due to global warming should be viewed in proper historical perspective, science writer Larry Bell observes in Forbes.com. Bell points out sea level has risen and fallen throughout human history without creating the catastrophes predicted by global warming alarmists. Alarmists also fail to mention that formerly coastal cities are now landlocked due to the falling sea levels during the Little Ice Age and other cooling events http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/12/16/quelling-the-rising-tide-of-sea-level-alarmism/

J. PUTTING SEA LEVEL RISE INTO HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, FROM A GEOLOGIST Check this short video to get a feel for how complicated sea level really is, while they are predicting millimeters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4&feature=player_embedded

EXPERTS SAY THE IPCC UNDERESTIMATED FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE

Posted on December 21, 2013 by David Middleton A new study surveys 90 sea level rise experts, who say sea level rise this century will exceed IPCC projections Wednesday 4 December 2013 John Abraham It looks like past IPCC predictions of sea level rise were too conservative; things are worse than we thought. That is the takeaway message from a new study out in Quaternary Science Reviews and from updates to the IPCC report itself. The new study, which is also discussed in depth on RealClimate, tries to determine what our sea levels will be in the future. What they found isn’t pretty. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/oh-say-can-you-see-modern-sea-level-rise-from-a-geological-perspective/#more-99686 Don Shaw

K. THE ANTARCTIC ‘RESEARCH’ FIASCO – ‘WOULD YOU, COULD YOU, IN A BOAT’? Posted on December 30, 2013 by Anthony Watts As we reported previously on WUWT here and here, the saga of the “climate scientists/tourists trapped in ice” continues to fascinate many. Now a second ship has given up on rescue, after the Chinese ship “Snow Dragon” gave up two days ago. The Aurora Australis has abandoned rescue of the trapped Russian “research”vessel in Antarctica and a helicopter evacuation in now being ordered. This episode has taken on a heightened comedic fiasco-like quality.

Now, with such a fantastic failure in full world view, questions are going to start being asked. For example, with advanced tools at their disposal (that Mawson never had) such as near real-time satellite imaging of Antarctic sea ice, GPS navigation, on-board Internet, radar, and satellite communications, one wonders how these folks managed to get themselves stuck at all. Was it simple incompetence of ignoring the signs and data at their disposal combined with “full steam ahead” fever? Even the captain of the Aurora Australis had the good sense to turn back knowing he’d reached the limits of the ship on his rescue attempt. Or, was it some sort of publicity stunt to draw attention? If it was the latter, it has backfired mightily. One might argue that with photos like the one below, this whole “Spirit of Mawson” research expedition is little more than a media stunt. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/30/the-antarctic-research-fiasco-would-you-could-you-in-a-boat/#more-100077

L. GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS FORCED TO ADMIT DEFEAT... BECAUSE OF TOO MUCH ICE: STRANDED ANTARCTIC SHIP'S GUESTS WILL BE RESCUED BY HELICOPTER

Chris Turney, a climate scientist and leader of the expedition, was going to document 'environmental changes' at the pole

In an interview he said he expected melting ice to play a part in expedition

MV Akademik Schokalskiy still stuck among thick ice sheet 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, the Tasmanian capital

Called for help at 5am Christmas morning after becoming submerged in ice Australia's back-up ship, Aurora Australis could not break through.

They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year. The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them. Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew has built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter. The expedition is being lead by Chris Turney, a climate scientist, who was hoping to reach the base camp of Douglas Mawson, one of the most famous Antarctic explorers, and repeat observations done by him in 1912 to see what impact climate change had made. It is thought that the group, which includes scientific researchers and a journalist, will now be able to escape by air after two sea rescues failed. Australian icebreaker Aurora Australis was unable to reach them because it was not strong enough to break through. A top-of-the-range Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon ('Xue Long'), was deployed earlier in the week, and hoped to reach the ship by Saturday. However just after midnight on Friday it too got stuck just six nautical miles from the ship. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2p0kCY8G9

M. NEW – MAGNETIC, REUSUABLE, OIL SPILL RECOVERY MATERIAL? Posted on December 29, 2013 by Anthony Watts Breakthrough or bogus? I ask readers to help sort it out. Every once in awhile something comes along that gives us a wow factor. This is one of those times. What you see below is a frame from a video that shows a magnet pulling oil out of that water using a reusable binding agent called NAIMOR. I had to watch this several times, because I kept looking for the “trick”. I couldn’t find any. If there is a trick, it is way better than “Mike’s Nature Trick” because surely this stuff is tricking out nature to do what seems impossible. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/new-magnetic-reusuable-oil-spill-recovery-material/#more-100024

N. EMISSIONS THREATEN HARVEST FROM OCEANS Editor’s Note. This article provides no data, only claims. SEATTLE TIMES HOGA ISLAND, Indonesia — He sat shirtless on his thin bamboo floor in a home built on posts rising out of the Banda Sea.

Tadi had just returned in his dugout canoe from scanning crevices in a nearby reef for octopus. He and his neighbors spend every day this way — scouring the ocean for something to eat or sell. Fishing, here, is about survival. Their stilt village has no industry, no land, no running water. They dive without oxygen, wearing hand-carved wooden goggles, and carry spear guns hacked from logs with their machetes. They eat what they catch and sell the rest, using the money to buy everything else they need: boat fuel, root vegetables, rice, wood. Without fishing, “how would I feed my family?” asked Tadi, who like many Indonesians has only one name. Now Tadi’s community, like countless others across the globe, is on a collision course with the industrialized world’s fossil-fuel emissions. Risks are growing Hundreds of millions of people around the world rely on marine life susceptible to warming temperatures and ocean acidification, the souring of seas from carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, oil and natural gas. That includes Northwest oyster growers and crabbers in the frigid Bering Sea, who now face great uncertainty from shifts in marine chemistry. But from Africa to Alaska, many coastal communities face a substantially greater risk. These cultures are so thoroughly dependent on marine life threatened by carbon dioxide that a growing body of research suggests their children or grandchildren could struggle to find enough food. The science of deciphering precisely who might see seafood shortages remains embryonic. But with many of the most at-risk coastal communities already facing poverty, marine pollution, overfishing and rising seas, the potential for calamity is high. Among the most vulnerable to changing ocean conditions are people like Tadi and his 1,600 fellow villagers — even if they don’t quite view it that way yet. The Sama people, or Bajau, are known as sea gypsies or sea nomads because they once lived mostly on boats. They roamed Southeast Asia between Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia, living off the sea, until governments began encouraging them to settle. Tadi’s offshore village was built in the late 1950s. Tadi’s neighbors and nearby island communities still land plenty of fish, but their reefs have seen better days. Everyone works a bit harder to find food. And a coming storm from carbon dioxide will only make things worse. Loss of coral These ocean changes may not directly hit the octopus and fish Tadi catches, but will almost certainly rearrange the foods available for those creatures to eat. And loss of coral, by itself, usually translates to fewer fish and marine creatures — often substantially fewer. Researchers recently working on reefs naturally bathed in carbon dioxide in Papua New Guinea reported finding half as many invertebrates — crabs, shrimp, sand dollars, marine worms — as on healthy corals. Carbon dioxide emissions may someday curtail her food supply. Steve Ringman / Seattle Times

O. QUESTIONS POLICYMAKERS SHOULD BE ASKING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT FUNDING Posted on January 2, 2014 by Bob Tisdale Even before the study of human-induced global warming became fashionable, tax dollars had funded a major portion of that research. Government organizations continue to supply the vast majority of the moneys for those research efforts. Yet with the tens of billions of dollars expended over the past couple of decades, there has been little increase in our understanding of what the future might bring. The recent 5th Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims that global surface temperatures are projected to increase through the year 2100, that sea levels will continue to rise, that in some regions rainfall might increase and in others it will decrease, etc. But those were the same basic messages with the 4th Assessment Report in 2007, and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, and the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995. So we’ve received little benefit for all of those tax dollars spent over the past few decades. Those predictions of the future are based on simulations of climate using numerical computer programs known as climate models. Past and projected factors that are alleged to impact climate on Earth (known as forcings) serve as inputs to the models. Then the models, based on more assumptions made by programmers, crunch a lot of numbers and regurgitate outputs that are representations of what the future might hold in store, with the monumental supposition that the models properly simulate climate. But it is well known that climate models are flawed, that they do not properly simulate climate metrics that are of interest to policymakers and the public—like surface temperatures, precipitation, sea ice area. And in at least one respect the current generation of climate models performs more poorly than the earlier generation. That is, climate models are getting worse, not better, at simulating Earth’s climate. With that in mind, the following are sample questions that policymakers should be asking climate scientists and agencies who receive government funding for research into human-induced global warming—along with information to support the questions. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/02/questions-policymakers-should-be-asking-climate-scientists-who-receive-government-funding/#more-100303

P. IPCC SILENTLY SLASHES ITS GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTIONS IN THE AR5 FINAL DRAFT Posted on January 1, 2014 by Guest Blogger Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Unnoticed, the IPCC has slashed its global-warming predictions, implicitly rejecting the models on which it once so heavily and imprudently relied. In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

Official projections of global warming have plummeted since Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies told the U.S. Congress in June 1988 the world would warm by 1 Cº every 20 years till 2050 (Fig. 1), implying 6 Cº to 2100. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

Figure 1. Projected global warming from 1988-2019 on three scenarios (above), and from 1988-2060 on scenario A only (below), based on Hansen (1988), who testified before the U.S. Congress that June that scenario A was his business-as-usual case. The trend from 1988-2050 on that scenario (arrowed) is approximately 0.5 Cº/decade. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/#more-100268

Q. UAH V5.6 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE UPDATE FOR DEC. 2013: +0.27 DEG. C January 3rd, 2014

 Roy Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/  

R. One Billion $/Year Against Science Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort. The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy ... dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found. ... the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle ... says this is a large-scale political effort. Brulle's study, published on Friday (20 December 2013) in the journal Climatic Change, offers the most definitive exposure to date of the political and financial forces blocking American action on climate change. ... About three-quarters of the funds were routed through trusts or other mechanisms that assure anonymity to donors – a trend Brulle described as disturbing and a threat to democracy. ... This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power ... they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real.

The vast majority of the 91 groups on Brulle's list were registered as charitable organizations and enjoyed considerable tax breaks. Those 91 groups included trade organizations, think tanks and campaign groups. The groups collectively received more than $7bn over the eight years of Brulle's study – or about $900m a year from 2003 to 2010. Conservative think tanks are the core of that effort. The leading venue for those underground donations was the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, which ... has now displaced such previous prominent supporters of the climate denial movement as the Koch-affiliated foundations and corporations like Exxon Mobil ... The following list of the major conservative and unaccountable organizations, cited in the study, use their money for deciding what our politics should be. They put their thumbs on the scale of democracy. American Enterprise Institute Heritage Foundation Atlas Economic Research Foundation John Locke Foundation Heartland Institute Competitive Enterprise Institute Americans for Prosperity Searle Freedom Trust John William Pope Foundation Howard Charitable Foundation Sarah Scaife Foundation These conservatives believe in "one dollar one vote" rather than "one person one vote"! When you read, hear or see something negative about climate change - look for the organization that is funding them. The culprits listed above provide most of the funding whether they are listed or not. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change Jaak Saame http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0403-y

S. FOSSIL-FUELED INGENUITY TO THE RESCUE IN ANTARCTICA Thanks to modern technology, those stranded researchers didn't meet a fate that has befallen others Fossil-Fueled Ingenuity to the Rescue in Antarctica A century ago, Australian geologist Douglas Mawson led a perilous expedition through Antarctica. His team's observations yielded unprecedented knowledge of the frozen continent's wildlife, climate and natural formations, though at a steep price: On the way, expedition member Lt. Belgrave Ninnis disappeared through a crevasse, along with a sledgeful of supplies and several huskies. Mawson and his remaining companion, Swiss ski champion Xavier Mertz, wound up having to eat their surviving dogs. Mertz fell ill and died three weeks later.

Mawson made it back to his base camp, only to find that he'd missed his boat and would have to wait another year to be rescued. "Several of my toes commenced to blacken and fester near the tips and the nails worked loose," he wrote later in his memoir, "Home of the Blizzard." "There appeared to be little hope." Prospects were considerably brighter from the start for the researchers more recently stranded in Antarctica, who were rescued by helicopter on Thursday. The episode—it would be hard to call the 10-day marooning an ordeal—began on Christmas Eve, when powerful winds shifted dense ice sheets, barricading the Russian-flagged research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition had set out in November to retrace Mawson's journey. But where Mawson barely escaped with his life, the icebound researchers, questing after evidence of global warming, seemed most threatened by a storm of global ridicule. Beyond the obvious jokes stirred by the story's basic outline, it's worth noting how much better off today's adventurers were than Mawson's team, thanks to the wonders of modern technology—much of it decidedly fossil-fueled. The diesel-powered Akademik Shokalskiy was equipped with depth sounders, automatic radar plotting, various satellite positioning systems and a full array of communication links. Instead of relying on sledges and huskies, today's expeditioners had amphibious all-terrain vehicles to explore their surroundings. The ship also had enough fresh and dehydrated food to last its 52 passengers (including the researchers and tourists) until February, if needed. As for entertainment, the Shokalskiy had an auditorium loaded with movies and a stocked bar—though one passenger cautioned earlier this week that booze supplies were running low and might not last much beyond a New Year's Eve celebration. As the days passed and repeated rescue attempts were foiled by harsher weather and thicker ice than expected, the strandees seemed to stay in good spirits. The scientific expedition's leader, climatologist Chris Turney, blogged that "we are all keeping busy," for instance with classes in "knot tying, languages, yoga, photography." The passengers posted a steady stream of photos and videos to social media, with a heavy focus on selfies with the penguins that waddled up to inspect the humans. "It's fantastic—I love it when the ice wins and we don't," marine ecologist Tracy Rogers told the BBC journalist onboard, adding: "It reminds you that as humans, we don't control everything and that the natural world—it's the winner here." When nature really wins, the moment usually isn't Instagram-ready. Those long-ago victims, Ninnis and Mertz, knew too well what it looks like. On Thursday, when rescuers from a Chinese icebreaker sent a helicopter to ferry the passengers to an Australian ship, many of those around the world who had followed the story might have found it appropriate to raise a toast to human ingenuity and the marvels of the helicopter—however big its carbon footprint. Maybe the climate-change researchers even raised a glass, if they had any liquor left. They certainly had enough ice. Just ask those Chinese rescuers: At last report their ship appeared to have become stuck too. Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe. T.   

 Date: Tuesday, 14 January 2014 Time: 14:00 - 15:00 Central European Time (GMT +1 hour) 00:00 - 01:00 Australian Eastern Daylight Time (GMT +11 hours) Wednesday, 15 January 2014 View the World Clock to check this event in your time zone.

If you haven't already registered, please join us on Tuesday 14 January 2014 (Central European Time) for a Global CCS Institute webinar on CO2 pipeline infrastructure: Lessons learned. Some 6,500 km of CO2 pipelines has been operating for years, primarily in the United States. More recently, a number of these pipelines have been used for CO2 re-use or carbon capture and storage (CCS) operations in Europe and the Americas. Valuable experience and lessons learnt are available from these projects relevant for all phases of CO2 pipeline projects:, from early identification to execution and operation. Based on a wide range of interviews and literature, Ecofys and SNC-Lavalin gathered information on 29 CO2 pipeline projects and then made the results accessible in a database. A reference manual was then written based on this information. This comprehensive document offers an overview of results and lessons learnt, serving as a guide to key issues on CO2 pipelines. The document relates to a number of examples in the database. In this webinar, Frank Wiersma from Ecofys will present an overview of the study, discussing the process, lessons learnt, and findings relevant for the development, realisation and operation of CO2 pipelines. This study was commissioned by the IEA GHG on behalf of the Global CCS Institute. Spaces are limited, please register for this webinar if you would like to join us.

System Requirements

PC - Windows 7/8, Vista, XP or 2003 Server

Macintosh - Mac OS X 10.6 or newer Mobile - iPhone, iPad, Andriod phone or Android tablet

After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

Arnie Feldman Regards George