Category Archives: Environment

“EPA Endangerment Finding Endangers The USA”

My previous posting discussed the need to eliminate the endangerment finding (EF) and to do it quickly.   This posting will be a reposting of an essay by Dennis Avery from WattsUpWithThat, titled “The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA”.   Avery  really captures the danger that the ER imposes and an overview of how wrong it is. 

My next posting will look at the “lines of evidence” upon which the EPA based the ER and how these “lines” have been invalidated.




The EPA CO2 endangerment finding endangers the USA

By Dennis T Avery with a foreword by Paul Driessen

October 2 2017

President Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”

Foreword by Paul Driessen:

The Obama EPA’s infamous “Endangerment Finding” declared that carbon dioxide and methane from fossil fuel operations cause global warming and climate change that pose imminent dangers to the health and wellbeing of every American. In this insightful article, climate history author Dennis Avery explains why this finding is based on bad science and should not be the basis for bureaucratic regulations or court decisions.

As Avery notes, computer climate models have predicted far more warming than has actually occurred in the Real World. Contrary to EPA claims, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have not become more frequent or severe. Natural forces and phenomena explain the various climate and weather fluctuations we have observed over the centuries – and demonstrate that CO2 is only a “bit player” in determining these changes. Moreover, new research convincingly shows that solar activity determines the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth, and thus the extent of low-lying clouds that periodically cool the planet … and at the other end of the cycle bring sunnier skies that warm it.

Guest opinion by Dennis T. Avery

Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and manmade carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and wellbeing of Americans. However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.

EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.

That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan. Continue reading


Most Revealing Chart Part 2–Failed Warmer Predictions


The previous posting shows that the warmer’s forecast “average global temperature” is way off from the actual measurements.  These alarmists use that erroneous forecast as the basis for their pronouncement of future global catastrophes that will come about if we don’t join their quest to remove CO2 emissions and switch to renewable energy.   

The alarmist’s forecasts of catastrophes get maximum coverage in the media.  It is obvious that the media never checks to see if the previous forecast have proven correct. And the following will demonstrate that the media never ever question an alarmist prediction and never ever goes back to check out the previous predictions.

There all kinds of alarmist’s forecasts, some of which I covered in an earlier posting titled” CAGW PREDICTIONS—ZOMBIE AND OTHER”. Almost all of them are embarrassingly wrong.   I encourage you to click on the link and have some good laughs.

The awful forecasts that follow are from scientists, science organizations and many from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)— a UN organization. This assembly of failure was posted by Javier on The Blog WattsUpWithThat with an intro by Andy May.  Andy takes a little liberty with Javier’s posting by adding on a section that highlights obvious predictions that the alarmists should have made.

An outline of the failed predictions are as follows:

·        Warming rate predictions

·        Temperature predictions

·        Winter predictions

·        Snow predictions

·        Precipitation predictions

·        Extreme weather predictions

·        Wildfire predictions

·        Rotation of the Earth predictions

·        Arctic sea predictions

·        Polar bear predictions

·        Glacier predictions

·        Sea level predictions

·        Sinking nation predictions

·        Climate refugee predictions

·        Climate change predictions

–and Andy May’s failure to predict list—

·        Greener planet

·        Increase in forest biomass

·        Carbon sinks increase

·        Slowdown in warming


All the above list can be read by clicking on the WattsUpWithThat posting

“Some Failed Climate Prediction”.



Most Revealing Chart Part 1 Computer Forecasts versus Actual Temperature Measurements.

The graph below is probably the most revealing of all the graphs used when discussing man-made global warming.  John Christy presented it to a US Congressional hearing in 2017.  The graph’s X axis shows years and the Y axis is global atmospheric temperature  anomalys in  degrees Centigrade.   (“Anomaly” degrees, is the measurement of the change in temperature rather that the actual temperature.  The actual temperature is somewhere  around 15C.  The exact temperature can be contentious.  So the anomaly is usually charted.)

The red line is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate model runs.  The man-made global warming theory doesn’t have one model.   They had 102 models all churning out forecasts of the future global temperature. All with different assumptions of what will the future look like.  All of them show rising temperature based  primarily the  amount of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  The forecast spread is all over the place based upon a number of other assumed forces.  Christy averaged the forecasts and that is  source of the red line.

Then Christy added the atmospheric  temperatures that were  MEASURED,  by satellites and weather balloons.

So, stating the obvious, we have actual measured temperatures versus forecast temperatures. One can note that over the time, the separation between actual and forecast has gotten greater and appears that trend will continue



These forecast high temperatures are what propels the catastrophic man-made global forecasts of sky high sea levels, melting glaciers, mass migrations,  mass extinction of species, terrifying  severe weather, and deadly heat.  The media revels in these forecast disasters and gives them top billing.  But why would you believe this will be the Earth’s future?   Surely if everyone knew this or have just learned it, why would they be persuaded to foist these irrational conclusions upon us?

You may be thinking that only one model would be necessary if they really could forecast average global temperatures.



Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 2

The previous posting,  “Does the Greenhouse gas effect really exist–Part 1”,  looked at measured radiation of longwave infrared (IR)  that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect.

There is another way to demonstrate the  greenhouse gas effect using the SURFRAD data.  I have selected SURFRAD data for the year 2016 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Desert Rock, Nevada sites

Some thoughts about the following charts 1B and 3B.  These charts plot  the radiation data—both solar short wave and the Earth’s longwave IR plus the net Solar and net longwave IR.

Charts 2B and 4B show air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and albedo.  These data are not used in the analysis but might prove valuable to someone interested in deriving a better understanding of the energy balance.

Figure 1B Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD:  Radiation Chart For 2016

Different from the earlier chart in Part 1 which showed a 24 hour continuous plot of data, the following 4 charts are the daily data in a given month combined and  the mean extracted for each data set.

Continue reading

Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 1

Does one have to deny that the so-called green house gases (GHG)s have an effect on global temperatures to be a skeptic?  Many of the big-league skeptics believe that the GHGs do play a part in global temperature.  So maybe not.

The following is a quote from Climate Change Reconsidered II** :

“ As carbon dioxide concentrations increase so too does the intensity of back radiation at the surface across the active wavebands of CO2, and because this radiation emanates from a lower and warmer layer of the atmosphere, the magnitude of the back radiation increases. Consequently, the net infrared radiation emanating from the surface is reduced, causing a rise in temperature that generates increased heat exchange and evaporation. This surface warming also contributes to an increase in convective instability”.

So, hold on and let me explain why I believe this.

First, a look at the big picture.   The Sun’s surface is somewhere about 5500 C.  Radiation goes out in all directions with some of it directed toward Earth.  This is Earth’s principal source of energy.  This radiation travels 93 million miles in about 8 minutes to reach Earth.  It loses much of its strength in the journey, but at the top of our atmosphere, its strength is nominally 1365 watts per square meter.  The Sun’s radiation mainly consists of photons of visible light, ultraviolet and infrared.  The full force of the Sun’s radiation seldom reaches the Earth surface because of clouds, reflection off snow and ice, scattering in the atmosphere for example and the angle that the Sun’s rays strike the surface.  Further complicating this topic is the fact on average, the Sun only shines on any place on Earth for more than 12 hours per day.

Many charts showing the Earth’s average energy budget use 340 w/m²  because when you factor in the length of the day and the spherical geometry of the Earth the effect is about ¼ the energy at the top of the atmosphere at noon.  While the Energy budget charts are useful, I believe they get in the way of understanding the GHG effect.  So, the following will uses actual measured radiation data and not the hypothetical 340w/m².

To get an idea of what happens at the surface, lets take a look at the data collected by the Surface Radiation Project. The Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) was established in 1993 through the support of NOAA’s Office of Global Programs. The SURFRAD mission is clear:

“its primary objective is to support climate research with accurate, continuous, long-term measurements of the surface radiation budget over the United States”. 

SURFRAD currently has 7 operating stations.  These stations are very well equipped. They can measure upwelling and downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling IR, temperature, RH, wind speed, cloud cover, UVb  and several others.   The SURFRAD website allows you to make charts of the collected day.  For starters I have plotted some data from the Desert Rock, Nevada SURFRAD site.

Figure 1A

Continue reading

The EPA HURTS The Environment And Impedes Law Enforcement

Guest posting by Richard F. Cronin

Sept. 15, 2017

As a Chem. Engr. with 40+ years’ experience, I can tell you that the current embodiment of the U.S. EPA HURTS the environment and impedes law enforcement.

The EPA only responds to the constituency which advances the reach and power of the EPA. That would be radicalized, out-of-control environmental groups. A good read on this topic is “Environmentalism Gone Mad” by Alan Carlin — former Sierra Club activist and EPA analyst.

The minority leader on the U.S. Senate Committee for Public Works & the Environment is Tom Carper (D-DE). He is grossly complicit in the near-criminal activities of the EPA under the Obama administration. I have written to my Senator several times on this topic as well as the chimera of “renewable energy” and have been stiff-armed every time. Senator Carper is up for re-election in 2018 and is rumored to be mulling retirement. It can’t happen fast enough by my lights.

The EPA was established in 1973, by Richard Nixon, another advocate for growing the reach and power of the federal government. The major legislation for Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed in the 1960s and after a few revisions became pretty sound, state-of-the-art, readily interpreted, and enforceable body of regulations. All private interests, such as chemical companies, were on a level playing field. Regulations for solid wastes (RCRA) followed in 1976. Again, with a few tweaks RCRA became a pretty good body of regs.

Then in the ensuing years, the layer upon layer of over-regulation accumulated, which degraded the regs into a set of mandates that not even EPA regulators could interpret because of inconsistencies and contradictory guidance.

Continue reading

What?  Downwelling IR Radiation–Why?  Condensation Nuclei (Cloud?)–How?  Tyndall (Colloid) Scattering