Download ASME Newsletter 2014-01-20

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
NEWSLETTER
20 JAN. 2014
If you need older URLs contact George at [email protected].
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. THE IPCC DISCARDS ITS MODELS
Posted on January 9, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Who will believe the CMIP5 models, after the IPCC plenary had to discount their temperature
projections?
Guest essay by Barry Brill
Table SPM.2 Projected change in global mean surface temperature (°C) for the mid- and late
21st century relative to the reference period of 1986-2005. From the IPCC AR5 Summary for
Policy Makers
Last August, I described the terrible bind which was about to face the IPCC Stockholm
meeting http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/.
Everybody knew the draft SPM was an embarrassment – the climate sensitivity range was
far too high, the models were plainly wrong and the temperature ‘hiatus’ was left
unexplained.
The IPCC had only three options – (i) re-run the models and re-draft the whole report, (ii)
issue a string of caveats, or (iii) simply bluster on.
The modeled IPCC temperature projections original shown in AR5 are unreliable says
IPCC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/the-ipcc-discards-its-models/#more-100843
B. CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE
EPA provides a discussion regarding Climate Change, but conveniently without supporting
references or citations.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html#greenhouseeffect
C. THE WHITE HOUSE GETS INTO THE ‘POLAR VORTEX’
CLIMATE CHANGE BLAME BUSINESS
Posted on January 8, 2014 byAnthony Watts
Watch John Holdren struggle to explain the “waviness” of the circumpolar vortex aka the ‘polar
vortex’ in today’s news cycle. Also, he says:
“http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/08/the-white-house-gets-into-the-polar-vortex-climatechange-blame-business/#more-100802
D. 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
E. SENATORS MANCHIN, BOOZMAN PROPOSE BILL TO
REFORM EPA SCIENCE REVIEW PROCESS
On December 18th, U.S. Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and John Boozman (R-AR) introduced
legislation to improve confidence in the fairness and transparency of Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulations and rulemaking by reforming the science advisory process.
The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would make changes to the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) by "increasing transparency, enabling SAB reviews of EPA 'risk or hazard
assessments' that are used to justify regulations, ensuring that the dissenting views of scientists
on review panels are not silenced, standardizing the SAB member selection process to make it
consistent with practices at the National Academies and other federal agencies, limiting nonscientific policy advice, increasing SAB disclosures, and eliminating SAB conflicts of interest."
This legislation would also:
 Address public participation and comment opportunities;
 Modernize the selection of Science Advisory Board (SAB) and sub-panel members;
 Eliminate conflicts of interest and increasing disclosures;
 Expand the ability of SAB members to express dissenting views;
 Enable SAB reviews of EPA "risk or hazard assessments"; and,
 Limit non-scientific policy advice.
Similar legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Chris
Stewart (R-UT), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology.
To review the legislation, go to http://thomas.loc.gov, and search by sponsors' names.
F. ENERGY DEPARTMENT RELEASES GRID ENERGY
STORAGE REPORT
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz recently released DOE's Grid Energy
Storage report to the members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The
report was commissioned at the request of Senator Ron Wyden, Committee Chairman. The
report identifies the benefits of grid energy storage, the challenges that must be addressed to
enable broader use, and the efforts of the Energy Department, in conjunction with industry and
other government organizations, to meet those challenges.
The report identifies four challenges that must be addressed to enable energy storage: the
development of cost-effective energy storage technologies, validated reliability and safety, an
equitable regulatory environment, and industry acceptance. The need for energy storage in the
electric grid is increasing as a result of the growing use of renewable power generation, which
varies with wind and solar conditions, and increasing frequency of severe weather caused by
climate change. The grid's evolution toward more distributed energy systems and the
incorporation of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids also contributes to the growing interest in
grid storage.
The storage report, developed by DOE with input from industry, academia, and government
stakeholders, identifies efforts to address each of the four key challenges. Those efforts include
integrated activities by the Department's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,
Office of Science, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, and Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Some of the key strategic actions are described below:
 Cost-competitive energy storage technology can be achieved through research,
resolving economic and performance barriers, and creating analytical tools for design,
manufacturing, innovation and deployment.
 The reliability and safety of energy storage technologies can be validated through
research and development, creation of standard testing protocols, independent testing
against utility requirements, and documenting the performance of installed systems.
 Establishing an equitable regulatory environment is possible by conducting publicprivate evaluations of grid benefits, exploring technology-neutral mechanisms for
monetizing grid services, and developing industry and regulatory agency-accepted
standards for siting, grid integration, procurement and performance evaluation.
 Industry acceptance can be achieved through field trials and demonstrations and use
of industry-accepted planning and operational tools to incorporate storage onto the
grid.
The report is now available at http://energy.gov/node/778601
G. FEDERAL REGISTER 6 JAN. 2014
Proposed Standards of Performance:
Withdrawal of Proposed Standards of Performance for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Generating Units
Pages 1352-1354 [FR DOC# 2013-31079] PDF | Text | More
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary
Sources:
Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
Pages 1429-1519 [FR DOC# 2013-28668] PDF | Text | More
2) HEALTH – A. INFLUENZA (03): USA (MICHIGAN,
CALIFORNIA) H1N1 DEATHS
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 5 Jan 2014 Source: WebProNews [edited] <http://www.webpronews.com/flu‐running‐rampant‐blamed‐for‐multiple‐deaths‐2014‐01> The flu virus is causing widespread panic again this year [2013‐2014 season], with the largest outbreak since the H1N1 "swine flu" pandemic that swept through the US in 2009. Several deaths have already been reported nationwide this season, with 4 dead in Michigan and 5 fatalities already reported in California since [1 Oct 2013]. The H1N1 strain has been one of the most deadly types of the influenza virus ever seen, and is now causing dozens of Americans to be placed on life support in the Michigan area. Health140120
3) SAFETY – A. NOTHING OF INTEREST
4. TRANSPORTATION – A. REGULATOR: PROBE ON
CRUDE-BY-RAIL LABELING SHOULD BE COMPLETED
WITHIN WEEKS
The results of a federal investigation of North Dakota oil firms' crude oil testing and labeling
should be available within weeks, said Cynthia Quarterman, administrator of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Quarterman said producers and shippers may be
penalized if proven to be mislabeling crude oil products for rail shipment. "We are concerned
that perhaps shippers have not been fulfilling their requirements in terms of testing and
classifying and knowing what is coming out of the field," said Quarterman.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/12/29/keystone-xl-foes-want-focus-on-spill-clean-up/
COMMENTS:
A. THE WEEK THAT WAS: 2014-01-11 (JANUARY 11, 2014)
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Proposed Talking Points and Generic Letter
By S. Fred Singer, Chairman, Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
TWTW readers have asked SEPP to provide major talking points to counter the false claim that
human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming (now often referred to
as 'climate change'). Government entities are imposing regulations that may create a real disaster
that raises energy costs, kills jobs, and destroys the middle class. Rich people can easily survive
even a large rise in energy prices; and the poor will simply look to more government handouts,
always paid by ever-increasing taxes on the middle class.
This is a recipe for social disaster, brought about by misplaced concerns about Dangerous
Anthropogenic [human caused] Global Warming (DAGW). Our purpose is to counteract this
illusion that’s being fed by current White House policies based on the faulty science of the UNIPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
NIPCC presents Climate Facts, not Hype
Our approach is to present the facts—as assembled in massive reviews of more than 5000
scientific papers by 50+ non-government scientists, many retired, living on pensions, and not
beholden to any special interests. We are known as the NIPCC (Non-governmental International
Panel on Climate Change). Our reports are available—free of charge—at
www.NIPCCreport.org.
Readers may wish to use whatever means available to bring this message to the wider public. In
some cases they will be limited on the number of words; many newspapers have strict limits for
Letters the Editor, something like 150-250 words. For these, I will simply list five facts as
shown below in a draft Letter to Editor. Customize it as you see fit –and encourage others to
participate.
But for other occasions, more words are permitted and more detailed explanations are in order. I
am referring here to presentations to civic organizations, clubs, church groups, etc. Here I
recommend using the five points below as a skeleton and filling in the details as you see fit. I list
here several previous publications in American Thinker that you may find useful.
These two are fairly general:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/climate_realism.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/china_questions_climate_consensus.html
These two are more technical:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/nongovernmental_climate_scientists_slam_the_uns_ip
cc.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html
Draft Letter to Editor
"Dear Editor
My purpose is to bring some common sense to the ongoing debate on "Dangerous"
Anthropogenic [human caused] Global Warming (DAGW) before ill-advised government
regulations produce a real disaster that raises energy costs and kills jobs --and the middle class.
Rich people will easily survive; and the poor will look to more government handouts, always
paid for by ever-increasing taxes.
Here are five facts --as assembled in massive reviews of more than 5000 scientific papers by 50+
non-government scientists, all of them volunteers, most living on pensions, not beholden to any
special interests --and known as the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change). Their Reports and Summaries are available --free of charge --at
www.NIPCCreport.org
1. There has been no observed global warming for at least 15 years --in spite of rising levels of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
2. The computer models used by the UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which all predicted a strong warming, evidently don't work and should not form the basis of
energy policy
3. There has been no observed increase in heat waves, severe weather, hurricanes, droughts, etc.
–as admitted by UN-IPCC
4. A moderate climate warming benefits humans and saves energy. The increase in CO2, a
natural plant fertilizer, benefits agriculture and lowers food prices
5. Therefore let’s stop misguided government efforts to lower CO2 emissions; let’s cancel all
subsidies for wind and solar energy --and for heaven's sake, let’s stop scaring the public!
**************
The Trap: On her web site Judith Curry has a re-posting of an essay by Garth Paltridge that
originally appeared in The Quadranton the Fundamental Uncertainties of Climate Change.
Paltridge discusses the major forecasting uncertainties of clouds and oceans, which have been
known since the 1970s and have not been much improved upon. Herein lies the trap that the
climate alarmists and science bureaucrats of the UN-IPCC has set for themselves. With each new
Assessment Report (every six years or so) the Summary for Policymakers is asserting greater
certainty in the work, even though the greater certainty is not appearing in the actual science.
(See Item 1A above, GHH) Many once distinguished national academies of science dutifully
followed along. Now, there is no way these bureaucratic scientists can conveniently extract
themselves from the trap and discuss the great uncertainty in climate science.
In a different post, Curry points out that in the scientific report (WG1) the scientific support for
human emissions of CO2 dominating global warming/climate change has weakened from the
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4-2007) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5-2013). Curry states
that the major issues are: 1) lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancy with climate
model projections [as compared with observations]; 2) evidence of a decreased climate
sensitivity to increases in CO2; 3) evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same
magnitude as in 1993-2012; 4) increasing Antarctic sea ice extent; and 5) low confidence in
attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming.
Now doubt the climate establishment will ignore the uncertainties and continue to publicly attack
those who assert the significant shortcomings. But, the real issue is how much longer will
taxpayers tolerate politicians funding this scientific charade? See links under Problems in the
Orthodoxy and Seeking a Common Ground.
**************
Climate Vortex: Dictionary examples of a vortex include a whirlpool, a cyclone, and a
quagmire. In a slick promotional video, the President’s Chief Science Advisor, John Holdren,
jumps into a quagmire. As illustrated in the Quote of the Week, Holdren blames the severe recent
cold weather in the US on global warming. The claim is counterintuitive. One would think that in
making such a video for the public, a presidential Science Advisor would carefully lay out the
scientific arguments for making such an assertion. Holdren does not even try.
The scientific argument is very weak. A lessening of the temperature differences between the
Arctic and the Mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere results in a weakening of the
circumpolar vortex. As explained by Tim Ball, and others, linked in prior TWTWs, the
circumpolar vortex is generally east to west, but may meander to a more north south pattern.
These are called Rossby Waves, with the former called Zonal Waves and the latter called
Meridional Waves (more closely following meridional lines of longitude). In his blog Resilient
Earth (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=blogs/doug-l-hoffman, Doug Hoffman demolishes
Holdren’s argument and appropriately suggests that the entire effort is similar to a beer
commercial.
The credibility of science is at issue. Statements such as Holdren’s highlights reasons for public
skepticism, and why government agencies and others promoting global warming find it
necessary to hire communications experts and psychological experts to come up with
explanations (excuses),why the public is becoming increasingly skeptical about their
pronouncements. Do these people believe the public is endlessly gullible, or do they believe their
own propaganda?
January 1977 was so cold in Washington that the Potomac River froze at the city. Some who
attended the inauguration of President Carter walked across the Potomac to and from the
ceremonies. What political speculation can be made from that event?
See links under Changing Weather, Climate Vortex –Whirlpool, Cyclone, or Quagmire?
http://drtimball.com/2012/current-global-weather-patterns-normal-despite-government-andmedia-distortions/ and
http://drtimball.com/2012/claims-global-warming-increases-severe-weather-are-scientificallyincorrect/
**************
Send Money! British Prime Minister David Cameron claimed that the mild wet winter in
England was being caused by global warming changing the circumpolar vortex. Initially, the Met
Office, which failed to predict the wet weather, disavowed the assertion. Then some officials in
the Met and other climate alarmist supported the claim. Myles Allen, head of the climate
dynamics group at Oxford University, supported the claim and asserted that providing the Met
Office or European Centre for Medium Range Forecasts with around £10 million a year would
allow experts to model the weather against conditions that would have occurred if humans had
not interfered with the climate.
According to a letter from the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 40 federal
agencies or sub-agencies participating in climate change activities spent over $22 billion in 2013.
SEPP does not know the extent of British expenditures, but has calculated that the US effort has
cost over $185 Billion since 1993.
Now some recipients of lavish government spending are admitting that their models cannot
separate the natural influences on climate from the human influences on climate –something that
skeptics have been pointing out for years. See links under Changing Weather and Funding
Issues.
**************
Turbine Life: As TWTW readers realize, SEPP does not think highly of wind power being an
alternative to reliable fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. Among other issues, wind
power is unreliable and needs expensive back-up, the costs of which, usually falls on others.
Turbine life, specifically gearbox life, remains an issue which is not publically addressed.
Estimates are as low as 5 to 8 years. In 2007, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), under the Department of Energy, formed the Gearbox Reliability Collaborative.
A review of the documents online found discussion of engineering issues that influence gearbox
life, but little on the expected life of the turbines. For some years, the Federal government has
been paying wind farm developers cash money on the expected production of wind farms in lieu
of the production tax credit that expired at the end of December. If the turbine life is shorter than
the expected 20 years, then government has been overpaying wind farm developers. See links
under Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind.
**************
Department of Energy: The US Department of Energy (DOE) has produced a publication
entitled “The Clean Energy Economy in Three Charts.” This is no more than a pure marketing
piece for wind and solar power. Amid flashy graphs that show booming increases in installation
of wind and solar capacity, the report states: “And according to the American Wind Energy
Association, by 2012 there were well over 80,000 workers employed in wind-related jobs in the
U.S.” This employment is insignificant when compared with the estimated employment increase
of 2 million from increases in oil and gas production from smart drilling –which is not supported
by taxpayers or Washington. The DOE report does not give the massive government
expenditures –but mentions government “investments.” What is the rate of return on these
“investment?”
Interestingly, the link to the DOE report did not work on Sunday, when this was being written.
See links under Energy Issues –US.
**************
Additions and Corrections: Reader Clyde Spencer corrected a sentence in TWTW on oil from
the Bakken formation. The oil contains such a high proportion of the more volatile components,
which ignite at temperatures lower than regular crude.
**************
Number of the Week: $199,100. Last week the American Petroleum Institute (API) gave a
briefing on the oil and gas industries emphasizing oil and gas shale revolution in the US. The
API failed to mention that the revolution was brought about by independent producers, not the
major integrated companies.
API President Jack Gerard emphasized that API will support those political candidates that
support oil and natural gas. The politically influential newspaper, The Hill, made much of this
and calculated that over 75% of the political action committee contributions to national
candidates in 2012 went to Republicans. According to the article, 2012 political contributions
totaled to $199,100 –an amount that is not enough to pay the salary of a senior executive in many
green organizations. See link under Washington’s Control of Energy
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2014/TWTW%201-11-14.pdf
B. WHAT CATASTROPHE?
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist
Jan 13, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 17 • By ETHAN EPSTEIN
When you first meet Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT,
senior fellow at the Cato Institute, leading climate “skeptic,” and all-around scourge of James
Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and
sundry other climate “alarmists,” as Lindzen calls them, you may find yourself a bit surprised. If
you know Lindzen only from the way his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a
lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt—you might expect a spittleflecked, wild-eyed loon. But in person, Lindzen cuts a rather different figure. With his gray
beard, thick glasses, gentle laugh, and disarmingly soft voice, he comes across as nothing short
of grandfatherly.
Granted, Lindzen is no shrinking violet. A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard
and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data
fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism. In a shot across the bow of
what many insist is indisputable scientific truth, Lindzen characterizes global warming as “small
and . . . nothing to be alarmed about.” In the climate debate—on which hinge far-reaching
questions of public policy—them’s fightin’ words.
In his mid-seventies, married with two sons, and now emeritus at MIT, Lindzen spends between
four and six months a year at his second home in Paris. But that doesn’t mean he’s no longer in
the thick of the climate controversy; he writes, gives myriad talks, participates in debates, and
occasionally testifies before Congress. In an eventful life, Lindzen has made the strange journey
from being a pioneer in his field and eventual IPCC coauthor to an outlier in the discipline—if
not an outcast.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html#
For the Spencer rebuttal go to http://www.drroyspencer.com/
C. SHIVERING BRITAIN
http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm
Dick Storm
D. THE MEDIEVAL AND ROMAN WARM PERIODS IN THE
WESTERN SWISS ALPS (25 DEC 2013)
Reference
Luetscher, M., Borreguero, M., Moseley,G.E., Spotl, C. and Edwards, R.L. 2013. Alpine
permafrost thawing during the Medieval Warm Period identified from cryogenic cave
carbonates. The Cryosphere 7: 1073-1081.
In the words of Luetscher et al. (2013), a new class of carbonate deposits - coarse cryogenic
cave carbonates (CCCcoarse) - "has recently emerged as the most reliable indicator of (palaeo)
glacial processes which can also be dated by U-series methods (Zak et al. 2004, 2008, 2012)."
And they say that their paper "extends for the first time the record of CCCcoarse into the Holocene
using samples from a partly deglaciated alpine cave [Leclanche Cave (46°20'42"N, 7°15'47"E]
located in the present-day permafrost zone" of the Sanetsch area of the western Swiss Alps, as
described by Borregueroet al. (2009). Specifically, working with seven individual CCCcoarse
aggregates found in Leclanche Cave, Luetscher et al. analyzed them in terms of their
petrography, isotopic composition and U/Th dating.
In the area of petrography, the five researchers discovered pieces of evidence that "strongly
suggest that these aggregates formed sub-aqueously in pools lacking agitation." In the area
of isotopic composition, they found evidence for the "progressive freezing of ponded water."
And in the area of U/Th dating, they determined that "two coeval samples were deposited at 751
± 55 and 823 ± 58 a b2k," where a b2k = years before AD 2000, so that in these two cases the
two dates were AD 1249 and AD 1177. In addition, four other samples provided an average age
of AD 927, while one sample suggested "a significantly older age of 2129 ± 235 a b2k," which
equates to 129 BC.
In commenting on their findings, Luetscher et al. state that the "230Th/234U dating indicates that
all spheroids formed in the Late Holocene," and that six were "coeval with the Medieval Warm
Period (MWP) characterized by elevated summer temperatures (Mangini et al., 2005; Buntgen et
al., 2011)," while the other sample fell within "the Roman Warm Period, which was also
characterized by a succession of warm climate episodes (Buntgen et al., 2011) and reduced
glacier extents (Holzhauser et al., 2005)." And so they conclude that "CCCcoarse has the potential
to provide precise chronologies of past warm episodes in areas where palaeo-environmental
proxy data are scarce." And so we conclude that the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were
both likely warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date in this part of the world, in
light of the fact that this area today is overlain by permafrost, which had to have thawed
sufficiently during these two earlier periods for water to seep down and into the cave, where it
established the pools within which the CCCcoarse aggregates were created.
Additional References
Borreguero, M., Pahud, A., Favre, G., Heiss, G., Savoy, L. and Blant, M. 2009. Lapi di Bou:
Recherches et explorations speleologiques 1974-2009.Cavernes 70: 213 pp.
Buntgen, U., Tegel, W., Nicolussi, K., McCormick, M., Frank, D., Trouet, V., Kaplan, J.O.,
Herzig, F., Heussner, K.-U., Wanner, H., Luterbacher, J. and Esper, J. 2011. 2500 years of
European climate variability and human susceptibility. Science 331: 578-582.
Holzhauser, H., Magny, M. and Zumbuhl, H.J. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in westcentral Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15: 789-801.
Mangini, A., Spotl, C. and Verdes, P. 2005. Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps
during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235:
741-751
Zak, K., Onac, B. and Persoiu, A. 2008. Cryogenic carbonates in cave environments. A
review. Quaternary International 187: 84-96.
Zak, K., Richter, D.K., Filippi, M., Zivor, R., Deininger, M., Mangini, A. and Scholz, D. 2012.
Coarsely crystalline cryogenic cave carbonate - a new archive to estimate the Last Glacial
minimum permafrost depth in Central Europe. Climate of the Past 8: 1821-1837.
Zak, K., Urban, J., Cilek, V. and Hereman, H. 2004. Cryogenic cave calcite from several Central
European caves: age, carbon and oxygen isotopes and a genetic model. Chemical Geology 206:
119-136
E. DOES THAWING OF PERMAFROST LEAD TO FURTHER
GLOBAL WARMING?
Reference
Zollinger, B., Alewell, C., Kneisel, C., Meusburger, K., Gartner, H., Brandova, D., Ivy-Ochs, S.,
Schmidt, M.W.I. and Egli, M. 2013. Effect of permafrost on the formation of soil organic carbon
pools and their physical-chemical properties in the Eastern Swiss Alps. Catena 110: 70-85.
According to Zollinger et al. (2013), a thawing of permafrost in sensitive ecosystems will
"increase the vulnerability of soil organic matter (SOM) to rapid microbial decomposition that
was previously stabilized by freezing temperatures." And they say that "this process might
increase the release of CO2 to the atmosphere," which would enhance the warming that was
responsible for its release, thereby repeating the cycle and leading to still more warming.
In exploring how this simplistic concept may - or may not - work in the real world, Zollinger et
al. studied soils (both with and without permafrost) of two areas above the timberline and one
below the timberline in south-eastern Switzerland. In doing so the nine researchers report
that carbon stocks (down to the C horizon or rock surface) "did not show a significant difference
between permafrost and non-permafrost soils and were in the same range of 10-15 kg/m2 in
alpine (grassland) and subalpine (forest) sites."
In light of this finding, Zollinger et al. remark that it is "questionable whether a thawing of
permafrost really would lead to an accelerated and increased carbon loss in these soils." For
example, as they continue, "several scenarios of global change are predicting ascending
vegetation zones, with the subalpine coniferous forest and Ericaceous shrubs becoming able to
colonize meadows at higher altitudes (Ozenda and Borel, 1991)." And they suggest that these
"changes in plant species and a potential increase in vegetation growth will enhance the
aboveground carbon storage capacity that might offset initial carbon losses."
Additional References
Ozenda, P. and Borel, J.L. 1991. Les consequences ecologiques possibles des changements
climatiques dans l'Arc alpin. Rapport Futuralp, Volume 1. ICALPE, Le Bourget-du-Lac, France.
F. COULD THIS STUDY ON HONESTY AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICE EXPLAIN THE EPA CLIMATEER FRAUD AND
‘CLIMATEGATE’?
Posted on January 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts
A new paper published the National Bureau of Economic Research has given an insight that may
explain some of the personal decisions that led to the recent EPA corruption fiasco Massive
fraud at the EPA from agency’s top paid climate official (where a top climate specialist
defrauded the taxpayers out of millions of dollars and made wild claims about being on CIA
missions) and to Climategate, since I see some significant parallels between the two and this
study. Links to a story about the paper and the paper itself follow.
As readers know, in a nutshell, Climategate was about the stonewalling of FOIA requests so that
independent researchers (such as McIntyre) could not replicate the scientific work. That access
for data to allow scientific replication was unreasonably blocked, and someone who was in a
position to see what was going on behind the scenes decided that they would do something about
it. Virtually every person involved in Climategate emails had some connection to government,
either being directly employed by a government agency, or a government funded university.
On 17 November 2009 a large number of emails, together with other documents and pieces of
code, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were posted on a Russian
web server, and announced anonymously at the Air Vent blog, Climate Audit, Real Climate, The
Blackboard, and WUWT with the comment:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We
hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
Of note, was the immediate deletion of the comment at Real Climate, and then a campaign by
Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS to convince Lucia at the Blackboard that the release wasn’t to
be trusted.
In that release from the “FOIA” leaker, we saw revelations like “Mike’s Nature Trick“. Here is a
list of some of the emails and their content.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/08/could-this-study-on-honesty-and-government-serviceexplain-the-epa-climateer-fraud-and-climategate/#more-100768
G. A SOBER LOOK AT THE NORTHERN POLAR VORTEX
Posted on January 7, 2014 by justthefactswuwt
Image Credit NASA
WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”
Currently there is a lot of media hype about the Polar Vortex over North America, but
little in the way of coherent explanation as to what a Polar Vortex is and how it affects
Earth’s temperature. As such, a Polar Vortex is “caused when an area of low pressure sits
at the rotation pole of a planet. This causes air to spiral down from higher in the
atmosphere, like water going down a drain.” Universe Today “A polar vortex is a
persistent, large-scale cyclone located near one or both of a planet’s geographical poles.”
“The vortex is most powerful in the hemisphere’s winter, when the temperature gradient is
steepest, and diminishes or can disappear in the summer.” Wikipedia In addition to those
on Earth, Polar Vortices also have been sighted on Venus, Mars, Jupiter , Saturn and
Saturn’s Moon Titan.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/a-sober-look-at-the-northern-polar-vortex/#more100709
H. PUTTING HEADLINES AHEAD OF SCIENCE
Posted on January 7, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Essay by Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared in Orange County Register on January 2, 2014.
On Dec. 10, Randy Schekman, a UC Berkeley professor, was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine. The day before, he published an op-ed in London’s Guardian, titled
“How journals like Nature, Cell, and Science are damaging science,” in which he announced that
he will henceforth refuse to send manuscripts for peer-reviewed consideration to these
prestigious science journals.
Schekman’s accusation is that these journals are distorting science by being biased towards the
“flashiest” research, i.e. papers that generate headlines such as “Global Warming Will Kill
Billions, Scientist Finds,” rather than the best research.
This matters more than one might think, because governments and universities
disproportionately make their award and funding decisions based on the research published in
the prestige journals.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/putting-headlines-ahead-of-science/#more-100706
I. WHITE HOUSE BLAMES 'POLAR VORTEX' ON GLOBAL
WARMING IN BLOG POST – BUT WITHOUT DATA OR
SUPPORT
The Obama administration is pushing back against skeptics who claim this week’s “polar vortex”
of cold weather is proof global warming is a myth, saying weather patterns such as these are
actually a result of climate change.
In a post on the official White House blog Wednesday, the administration starts by saying no
single weather event proves or disproves climate change. (GHH-agreed)
“If you’ve been hearing that extreme cold spells, like the one we’re having in the United States
now, disproves global warming, don’t believe it,” Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s science
adviser, says in a video included in the blog post.
However, the White House says extreme cold spells can actually be attributed to global warming,
and that such weather patterns will likely appear with more frequency as climate change
continues. (GHH-why is this cool spell attributed to global warming?)
“…This week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a
world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution,” the blog states.
Some Republican commentators and lawmakers have raised questions about the veracity of
global warming amid the bitter blast of cold temperatures that rocked most of the U.S.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, a member of the Senate Environmental Committee, said Tuesday weather
events such as the polar vortex prove global warming is a “hoax.”
"First of all global warming is not taking place it's kind of laughable right now with all the
records that are being set," Inhofe, R-Okla., told Fox 23.
The White House is also planning to hold a Google+ hangout on Friday to discuss “what we
know about extreme weather events in the context of a changing climate.” The hangout will
feature climate scientists and meteorologists and will be moderated by Cristin Dorgelo and
Brendan Kelly from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/08/white-house-blamed-polar-vortex-on-globalwarming-in-blog-post/?intcmp=latestnews
J. QUOTE OF THE WEEK – CLIMATE INDUCED ‘EXTREME
WEATHER’ HAS LONG BEEN A CONCERN OF CLIMATE
SCIENTISTS
Posted on January 9, 2014 by Anthony Watts
\
As the subzero ‘polar vortex’ that froze the nation turns into the latest selling point for global
warmers, with even the White House getting in on the act, it is important to turn to history,
because all this extreme weather hullabaloo has happened before.
Except, the situation was different, they were trying to tie it to global cooling, not warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/quote-of-the-week-climate-induced-extreme-weatherhas-long-been-a-concern-of-climate-scientists/#more-100848
K. DESPITE CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS EFFORTS,
GERMANY’S NEW COAL BOOM REACHES RECORD LEVEL
Posted on January 7, 2014 by Anthony Watts
From The GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
Dirty Coal Revived As Europe Speeds Green Retreat
With Greenpeace successfully forcing the shutdown of nuclear power, and keeping out fracking
for gas, what’s left? A boom in coal. In fact, over the next two years Germany will build 10 new
power plants for hard coal. Europe is in a coal frenzy, building power plants and opening up
new mines, practically every month. It might sound odd that a boom in German coal is the result
of Greenpeace’s political success. –Ezra Levant, Toronto Sun, 7 January 2014
Germany’s wind and solar power production came to an almost complete standstill in early
December. More than 23,000 wind turbines stood still. One million photovoltaic systems stopped
work nearly completely. For a whole week coal, nuclear and gas power plants had to generate an
estimated 95 percent of Germany’s electricity supply. –Daniel Wetzel, Die Welt, 24 December
2013
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/despite-climate-campaigners-efforts-germanys-new-coalboom-reaches-record-level/
Arnie Feldman
L. GRID’S RELIANCE ON WIND GENERATES SOME
CONCERN CRITICS FEAR STATE DEPENDING TOO MUCH
ON POWER FROM TURBINES
By Emily Pickrell
The cold wind from this week’s norther spun turbines that helped keep Texas furnaces running
— but also stirred up questions about whether the state counts too much on the intermittent
power source.
Wind power helped keep the lights on amid freezing temperatures statewide Monday. It
provided about 1,800 megawatts of the 56,000 megawatts of generation capacity available that
morning — enough to provide power to at least 360,000 typical Texas residences.
But the close brush with blackouts Monday has some wondering if the state is depending too
much on wind.
“The more the state relies on wind, there is a potential for having a very unstable grid,” said Ed
Hirs, an energy economics professor at the University of Houston.
Wind advocates respond that while the breeze itself may be fickle, forecasting technology is
such that grid operators can figure fairly precisely how much wind power will be available.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of the state’s grid, includes a
set amount of wind generation when projecting the state’s power capacity.
“The wind that morning was exactly what had been anticipated in the forecasting and modeling
that takes place in the days prior,” said Jeff Clark, executive director of The Wind Coalition, an
Austin-based nonprofit association focused on wind resources throughout the state and the
Midwest. “This is very much a science.”
Hirs said, however, that wind capacity varies enough to make it inferior to nuclear or fossilfuel plants for base load — the minimum power typically required around the clock
— and peak load that occurs as demand rises and more plants come online. “Wind is not 100
percent reliable,” he said.
But wind planners say such criticism may not make enough distinction between wind itself and
wind power capacity.
Forecasting methods
Weather forecasting technology has improved significantly in recent years, and the Texas grid
has about a 90 percent to 95 percent accuracy rate in short-term wind projections, said Bill
Blevins, manager of operations and planning for the Electric Reliability Council.
California — second only to Texas in wind power generation — uses the Lone Star state as its
model for methodologies in predicting wind power, said Case Van Dam, chair of the California
Wind Energy Collaborative and a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of
California at Davis.
“The forecasts go out several days in advance, and of course there is some uncertainty in that,”
Van Dam acknowledged. “But as you get closer to the day of operation, you get less uncertainty
in those forecasts.”
In 2012, wind provided about 9 percent of Texas’ power, according to the American Wind
Energy Association. But on Monday it contributed only about 3 percent of electricity used during
peak demand, tempering any perception that wind alone kept parts of the grid from going dark in
rolling blackouts.
Record set in February
“It’s a nice story for wind, but it’s scary that they are relying on it in emergency situations,”
said Houston-based independent energy trader Adam Sinn. “I think wind should be looked at as a
buffer, and that the grid should always have fossil fuel resources to prevent an event.”
The number of wind turbines available doesn’t vary much from day to day, but the wind
needed to turn them does. For example, a cold front in February 2013 included strong winds.
Wind generation ended up providing 28 percent of the system load on Feb. 9, 2013, adding what
then was a record 9,481 megawatts.
But planners can’t count on such windblown bounty, and instead have to predict how much
power to expect from wind-driven generators based on weather conditions.
The state has more than 12,000 megawatts of wind capacity — the amount all the turbines
could produce if operating at full tilt — and that figure is set to reach 14,000 megawatts by the
end of this year.
But because of wind’s variable nature, the Electric Reliability Council includes only 8.7
percent of wind turbines’ total capacity in estimating available power at peak conditions, even
though the turbines often generate much more.
Wind capacity on target
While Monday morning’s wind was much lower than the previous or following mornings, it
still exceeded the 8.7 percent standard, providing around 15 percent of total capacity — and right
on target with forecasts, according to Clark, of The Wind Coalition.
“The wind is a variable resource, but the important thing is that it is not a random resource,”
Clark said. “It is highly predictable, it is fore castable, and in this situation, the forecast and the
actual generation were very close together.”
How wind is calculated as an available resource will be a key question in continuing debates
over whether Texas has sufficient generation capacity to keep a safety margin when demand is
greatest, usually to run air conditioners on the hottest summer days.
ERCOT had considered a proposal by technical advisers last year to increase the amount of
wind capacity in its forecasts to 14.2 percent for non-coastal wind resources and 32.9 percent for
coastal wind resources, but has delayed any decisions on the proposal until later this year.
[email protected] M. NEWLY RELEASED NY ENERGY PLAN MUM ON
FRACKING
A New York state panel this week released a plan for energy development that does not address
plans for allowing hydraulic fracturing in the state's portion of the Marcellus Shale. The plan is
open for public comment and is scheduled to be finalized in the spring.
http://www.stargazette.com/viewart/20140108/NEWS10/301080028/Newly-released-NYenergy-plan-mum-fracking
N. AN ILLUSTRATED INTRODUCTION TO THE BASIC
PROCESSES THAT DRIVE EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA EVENTS
Posted on January 10, 2014 by Bob Tisdale
El Niños and La Niñas are parts of naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled processes—amazing
processes—that produce warm water and redistribute it from the tropical Pacific. When I was
first able to fathom the processes, when they finally clicked for me, I was in awe of Mother
Nature’s handiwork. Cloud cover, sunlight, ocean heat content, sea surface temperatures, sea
level, surface winds, ocean currents, etc., all interwoven, all interdependent, with the events
occurring at massive scales. I’ve been sharing their complexity, magnitude and aftereffects ever
since. Hopefully, this post will allow you to gain some insight–or spark your interest.
El Niño and La Niña events are extremely important parts of Earth’s climate. They are the
dominant mode of natural climate variability on annual, multiyear and decadal timeframes. El
Niño and La Niña events impact everything from drought and rainfall to surface temperatures
around the globe. Consider this: El Niños and La Ninas occur in the tropical Pacific, but more
than a decade ago it was determined that they rearranged sea ice in the Southern Ocean
surrounding Antarctica. Recently, they were even linked to temperature of the water below the
Antarctic sea ice, through changes in ocean wind patterns. See Dutrieux et al. (2014) Strong
Sensitivity of Pine Island Ice-Shelf Melting to Climatic Variability and the corresponding
ScienceDaily article here.
The following is Section 1 from my ebook Who Turned on the Heat? This presentation was
created to fill the gap between overly scientific texts and the basic (but way too simple)
descriptions of El Niño and La Niña processes that are available on the internet. As I noted
above, hopefully, it will help you to understand those seemingly complex processes. Please ask
questions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/10/an-illustrated-introduction-to-the-basic-processes-thatdrive-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/#more-100903
O. ALARMISTS DUMP IPCC,
NOW CLAIM GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES COLD
Faced with the embarrassment of historically cold temperatures gripping most of the nation this
week, global warming alarmists claimed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change was wrong in predicting fewer cold outbreaks. Instead, the alarmists now assert, global
warming causes extreme winter cold.
Here are some of the latest headlines along that narrative:
“How frigid ‘polar vortex’ could be result of global warming” – Christian Science Monitor
“Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold” – Time
“US polar vortex may be example of global warming” – The Guardian
“Thank Global Warming for Freezing You Right Now” – The Daily Beast
“Cold as Hell: The Chilling Effect of Global Warming” – Huffington Post
If global warming alarmists really had predicted global warming would cause more frequent and
severe cold outbreaks (via runaway polar vortexes or whatever), we should see such predictions
throughout the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The
problem is such predictions are not there.
Here is what the IPCC has to say on the topic of global warming and winter cold outbreaks. In
IPCC’s “Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” we are told there will be
“warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.”
This is the IPCC. The alarmists constantly preach that the IPCC is the unified position – the
settled science – of nearly all the world’s scientists. And IPCC says exactly the opposite of what
global warming alarmists now tell us they “always predicted” about global warming and winter
cold outbreaks.
So, is this week’s climate alarmism demonstrably false, or is the IPCC’s settled science
demonstrably false? It must be one or the other.
ww.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/08/embarrassed-global-warming-alarmists-sink-tocomedic-lows-with-polar-vortex-excuse/
P. 2013: THE LEAST EXTREME WEATHER YEAR EVER?
Despite alarmist claims that global warming is causing more extreme weather events, objective
data show remarkably few extreme weather events in 2013. Climate Depot posted an article
documenting tornadoes and forest fires were at or near all-time lows. Also, no hurricanes struck
the United States mainland in 2013, and the U.S. mainland is currently experiencing its longest
period in recorded history without a Category 3 or higher hurricane strike.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/27/2013-shatters-the-record-for-fewest-tornadoes-15lower-than-previous-record/
Q. POLAR SEA ICE EXTENT WAS WELL ABOVE AVERAGE
IN 2013
Polar sea ice was well above the long-term average in 2013, NASA/NOAA satellite data show.
Satellites launched in 1979 provide scientists with highly accurate measurements of polar sea ice
during the past 34 years. For 2013, Arctic sea ice was its most extensive in several years and
Antarctic sea ice was substantially above the 34-year average. Combined, polar sea ice was its
most extensive in more than a decade, despite carbon dioxide emissions during the past decade
rising faster than United Nations projections.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ R. ‘LUKEWARMIST’ CURRY: IPCC’S NEW REPORT
UNDERMINES ALARMISM
Evidence presented by the IPCC in its newest report weakens the case for anthropogenic factors
dominating climate change during the past 100 years, ‘lukewarmist’ climate scientist Judith
Curry reports. Curry notes the IPCC says it has growing confidence that human factors are
dominating climate change. Nevertheless, Curry observes, “This increase in confidence in the
main conclusions in the AR5 SPM seems unwarranted based on the text, figures and analyses in
the main WG1 Report, and also in comparison with the conclusions from the AR4. Several key
elements of the report point to a weakening of the case for attributing the warming of human
influences.” Curry presents those elements in the full text of her article.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
S. AL GORE RUNNING OUT OF TIME ON 10-YEAR DOOM
PREDICTION
There has been no statistically significant global warming since Al Gore warned us eight years
ago that humans had only 10 years left to save the planet from global warming, climate scientist
Roy Spencer reports. “In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not
shaping up too well … still no statistically significant warming,” Spencer writes, while
presenting the raw temperature data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-nowarming/
T. DISPOSAL WELL SUIT HAS OIL INDUSTRY ON GUARD
Wastewater pumped under rice farm leads to legal challenge
By Jennifer Hiller
Do you really own your land from heaven to hell?
A lawsuit filed by an East Texas rice farm against the operator of a nearby disposal well raises
that question — and the potential answer has gotten the oil and gas industry’s attention.
The Texas Supreme Court last week heard arguments concerning a case in which a rice farm
says that a neighboring disposal well trespassed on its subsurface property by pumping millions
of gallons of nonhazardous wastewater 8,000 feet underground.
Heaven and hell
The case involves the ancient common law concept that a landowner owns everything not
specifically severed from the property. The idea — cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et
ad inferos — means “For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven and down to hell.”
The oil and gas industry has long used disposal wells for wastewater, and the highest profile
fluid being disposed of underground these days is from hydraulic fracturing. Some fracturing
water returns to the surface, and the rock itself often produces brackish water alongside oil and
gas.
Other industries
But other industries such as chemical or fertilizer companies or food manufacturers use
disposal wells, too.
“The potential ramifications go well beyond the oil and gas industry,” attorney Brad Chambers
of Baker Donelson in Houston said.
The Texas Oil and Gas Association was among the industry groups that filed an amicus curiae
brief on behalf of the disposal well company, concerned that limits on disposal wells may create
a de facto limit on oil and gas production.
“On average, approximately 10 barrels of salt water are produced with every barrel of crude
oil. If the operator cannot dispose of the produced water, typically through injection, it cannot
produce oil and gas,” attorneys for the association wrote. “To the extent the court of appeals’s
decision limits Class II injection wells, it correspondingly limits mineral production activities
that depend on those injection wells.”
Farm group
Texas Farm Bureau filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the rice farmer, arguing that the
disposal company is storing millions of gallons of liquid — in a “permanent occupation” —
below the farm’s surface without paying for that right.
The lawsuit involves a nonhazardous wastewater injection well operated by Environmental
Processing Systems, which is near two tracts of land owned by FPL Farming Ltd.
“While the groundwater remains underneath FPL’s property, neither the rule of capture nor any
other rule allows a third party to physically invade, contaminate and occupy the subsurface
where the groundwater is located,” attorneys for the Farm Bureau argue. “In fact, damage is
shown by the very fact that EPS is utilizing property for FPL for its own commercial purpose
and advantage, yet pays FPL no compensation for that use.”
The Liberty County case has a long and complicated history. A lawsuit filed in the late 1990s
by the rice farm was settled, but the dispute was revived a few years ago when the permit for the
property changed and the company started pumping more. The farm sued for trespass,
negligence and unjust enrichment, but it lost in district court.
Not for certain
Attorney Mark Mathews, also of Baker Donelson, said the case raises complex questions on
how to prove the trespass, absent wells at similar depth where water can be tested.
“Engineers can show where they anticipate those fluids migrating. It’s an anticipation. They
can’t say for certain, ”Mathews said.
He said the energy industry is ultimately concerned about any slowdown in getting waste to a
disposal well.
“You don’t want to be waiting to dispose of any fluids,” Mathews said.
Regan Beck, assistant general counsel for public policy with the Texas Farm Bureau, said it’s a
slippery slope. If the court says there’s no trespass at 8,000 feet, what about at 100 feet?
“Where is that line where you don’t have a trespass?” Beck asked. “Even if it’s 8,000 feet
down, it’s part of your property. It has commercial value. Or it may have commercial value in
the future, and that’s being taken away from them.”
Last week at a hearing, Justice Paul Green said he struggled to understand how a court would
penalize a well operator for a trespass that’s hidden under tons of earth and rock.
“I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the issue of how much would be owed and
when it would be owed,” he said, adding that it would prove difficult to determine when exactly
the trespass took place and how much of the farm’s property — its groundwater — was
damaged.
“We don’t really know, 8,000 feet below, where (the waste) goes,” Green said.
“It is polluting the groundwater,” Claudia Wilson Frost, FPL’s attorney, told the justices. “We
have a real property right … and it’s being transgressed.”
Environmental Processing Services said the waste will make the groundwater no more polluted
than it naturally is.
‘A long time’
“What flows beneath FPL’s property is crud. You can’t drink it,” Craig Enoch, the well
operator’s attorney, told the court, adding, “There’s no evidence that it’s polluted.”
The outcome and any ramifications for the disposal industry likely will remain in limbo for
some time while the Supreme Court considers the case.
“I wouldn’t expect a resolution anytime soon from the Supreme Court,” Chambers said. “This
is going to take a long time.” [email protected]
Editors Note: What impact will this have on CO2 sequestration wells? The injection
pressure is purposely high to keep CO2 in liquid state and there are no producing wells to
help retain the CO2 migration to within the intended area.
Regards
George