Bad Climate Science Debunked [Greg Laden's Blog]

Recently, a paper published in a Chinese journal of science by Monckton, Soon and Legates attracted a small amount of attention by claiming that climate science models “run hot” and therefore overrepresent the level of global warming caused by human greenhouse gas pollution. The way they approached the problem of climate change was odd. The Earth’s climate system is incredibly complex, and climate models used by mainstream climate scientists address this complexity and therefore are also complex. Monckton et al chose to address this complexity by developing a model they characterize as “irreducibly simple.” I’m not sure if their model is really irreducibly simple, but I am pretty sure that a highly complex dynamic system is not well characterized by a model so simple that the model’s creators can’t think of a way to remove any further complexity.

The same journal, Science Bulletin, has now published a paper, “Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results,” by Richardson, Hausfather, Nuccitelli, Rice, and Abraham that evaluates the Monckton et al paper and demonstrates why it is wrong.

From the abstract of the new paper:

Monckton et al. … use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response. They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies. [They] did not validate their model against observations, but instead created synthetic test data based on subjective assumptions. We show that [they] systematically underestimate warming … [They] conclude that climate has a near instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth. This contributes to their low estimates of future warming and is falsified by Argo float measurements that show continued ocean heating and therefore a sustained energy imbalance. [Their] estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with 29 measurements and so cannot be considered credible.

The Monckton model does not match observed temperatures, and consistently underestimates them. We don’t expect a model to perfectly match measurements, but when a model is wrong so much of the time in the same direction, the model is demonstrably biased and needs to be either tossed or adjusted. However, you can’t adjust an “irreducibly simple” model, by definition. Therefore the Monckton model is useless. And, as pointed out by Richardson et al, the basic values used in the model were badly selected.

Figure 2 from Richardson et al demonstrate the problem with bias. The pink band in the upper figure and the red/pink line in the lower figure show the Monckton model tracking across time from 1850, compared to several sets of actual observations. The irreducibly simple model may not be irreducibly wrong, but it is irreducibly useless.

Monckton et al rely on the assumption that the Earth’s surface temperature varies by only 1% around a long term (810,000 year) average. This “thermostasis”, they argue, means that there are no positive feedbacks that move the Earth’s temperature higher. This ignores the fact that for that entire record one of the main determinants of global surface temperature, greenhouse gases, has also not varied from a fairly narrow range. But now human greenhouse gas pollution has pushed greenhouse gas concentrations well outside that long term range, and heating has resulted.

The Monckton model is contradicted by observation of global ocean heat content. However, recent Argo measurements of ocean heat content indicate significant warming over the last decade.

During recent years, the rate at which global mean surface temperatures have gone up has been somewhat reduced, and various factors have been suggested as explanations. Of these explanations, Monckton et al. assume only one of these to be true, specifically, that the climate models used by all the other climate scientists are wrong. They ignore other very likely factors. Monckton et al state that models used by the IPCC “run hot” without any reference to the fairly well developed literature that examines differences between observed temperatures and model ranges. They also misinterpreted IPCC estimates of various important feedbacks to the climate system.

I asked paper author John Abraham if it is ever the case that a simpler model would work better when addressing a complex system. “While simple models can give useful information, they must be executed correctly,” he told me. “The model of Monckton and his colleagues is fatally flawed in that it assumes the Earth responds instantly to changes in heat. We know this isn’t true. The Earth has what’s called thermal inertia. Just like it takes a while for a pot of water to boil, or a Thanksgiving turkey to heat up, the Earth takes a while to absorb heat. If you ignore that, you will be way off in your results.”

I also contacted author Dana Nuccitelli, who recently published the book “Climatology versus Pseudoscience,” to ask him to place the Monckton et al. study in the broader context of climate science contrarianism. He told me, “In my book, I show that mainstream climate models have been very accurate at projecting changes in global surface temperatures. Monckton et al. created a problem to solve by misrepresenting those model projections and hence inaccurately claiming that they “run hot.” The entire premise of their paper is based on an inaccuracy, and it just goes downhill from there.”

This is not Nuccitelli’s first rodeo when it comes to the Monckton camp. “It’s perhaps worth noting that these same four authors (Legates, Soon, Briggs, and Monckton) wrote another error-riddled paper two years ago, purporting to critique the paper my colleagues and I published in 2013, finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature,” he told me. “The journal quickly published a response from Daniel Bedford and John Cook, detailing the many errors those four authors had made. There seems to be a pattern in which Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs somehow manage to publish error-riddled papers in peer-reviewed journals, and scientists are forced to spend their time correcting those errors.”

Monckton et al cherry-picked the available literature, thus ignoring a plethora of standing arguments and analysis that would have contradicted their study. They get the paleoclimate data wrong, ignore over 90% of the climate system (the ocean), selected inappropriate parameters, and seem unaware of prior work comparing models and data. Monckton et al also fail to provide a useful alternative valid model.

Monckton et al failed in their attempt to demonstrate that IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity run hot. Their alternative model does not perform well, and is strongly biased in one direction. They estimate future warming based on “assumptions developed using a logically flawed justification narrative rather than physical analysis,” according to Richardson et al. “The key conclusions are directly contradicted by observations and 450 cannot be considered credible.”

Also of interest

Aside from the obvious and significant problems with the Monckton et al paper, it is also worth noting that the authors of that work are well known as “climate science deniers” or “contrarians.” You can find out more about Soon here. Monckton has a long history of attacking mainstream climate science as well as the scientists themselves. To be fair, it is also worth noting that two of the new paper’s authors have been engaged in this discussion as well. John Abraham has been eDebating Monckton for some time. (See also this conversation with me, John Abraham, and Kevin Zelnio.)

Author Dana Nuccitelli is the author of this recent book on climate science deniers and models.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1FpIk2a

Recently, a paper published in a Chinese journal of science by Monckton, Soon and Legates attracted a small amount of attention by claiming that climate science models “run hot” and therefore overrepresent the level of global warming caused by human greenhouse gas pollution. The way they approached the problem of climate change was odd. The Earth’s climate system is incredibly complex, and climate models used by mainstream climate scientists address this complexity and therefore are also complex. Monckton et al chose to address this complexity by developing a model they characterize as “irreducibly simple.” I’m not sure if their model is really irreducibly simple, but I am pretty sure that a highly complex dynamic system is not well characterized by a model so simple that the model’s creators can’t think of a way to remove any further complexity.

The same journal, Science Bulletin, has now published a paper, “Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results,” by Richardson, Hausfather, Nuccitelli, Rice, and Abraham that evaluates the Monckton et al paper and demonstrates why it is wrong.

From the abstract of the new paper:

Monckton et al. … use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response. They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies. [They] did not validate their model against observations, but instead created synthetic test data based on subjective assumptions. We show that [they] systematically underestimate warming … [They] conclude that climate has a near instantaneous response to forcing, implying no net energy imbalance for the Earth. This contributes to their low estimates of future warming and is falsified by Argo float measurements that show continued ocean heating and therefore a sustained energy imbalance. [Their] estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with 29 measurements and so cannot be considered credible.

The Monckton model does not match observed temperatures, and consistently underestimates them. We don’t expect a model to perfectly match measurements, but when a model is wrong so much of the time in the same direction, the model is demonstrably biased and needs to be either tossed or adjusted. However, you can’t adjust an “irreducibly simple” model, by definition. Therefore the Monckton model is useless. And, as pointed out by Richardson et al, the basic values used in the model were badly selected.

Figure 2 from Richardson et al demonstrate the problem with bias. The pink band in the upper figure and the red/pink line in the lower figure show the Monckton model tracking across time from 1850, compared to several sets of actual observations. The irreducibly simple model may not be irreducibly wrong, but it is irreducibly useless.

Monckton et al rely on the assumption that the Earth’s surface temperature varies by only 1% around a long term (810,000 year) average. This “thermostasis”, they argue, means that there are no positive feedbacks that move the Earth’s temperature higher. This ignores the fact that for that entire record one of the main determinants of global surface temperature, greenhouse gases, has also not varied from a fairly narrow range. But now human greenhouse gas pollution has pushed greenhouse gas concentrations well outside that long term range, and heating has resulted.

The Monckton model is contradicted by observation of global ocean heat content. However, recent Argo measurements of ocean heat content indicate significant warming over the last decade.

During recent years, the rate at which global mean surface temperatures have gone up has been somewhat reduced, and various factors have been suggested as explanations. Of these explanations, Monckton et al. assume only one of these to be true, specifically, that the climate models used by all the other climate scientists are wrong. They ignore other very likely factors. Monckton et al state that models used by the IPCC “run hot” without any reference to the fairly well developed literature that examines differences between observed temperatures and model ranges. They also misinterpreted IPCC estimates of various important feedbacks to the climate system.

I asked paper author John Abraham if it is ever the case that a simpler model would work better when addressing a complex system. “While simple models can give useful information, they must be executed correctly,” he told me. “The model of Monckton and his colleagues is fatally flawed in that it assumes the Earth responds instantly to changes in heat. We know this isn’t true. The Earth has what’s called thermal inertia. Just like it takes a while for a pot of water to boil, or a Thanksgiving turkey to heat up, the Earth takes a while to absorb heat. If you ignore that, you will be way off in your results.”

I also contacted author Dana Nuccitelli, who recently published the book “Climatology versus Pseudoscience,” to ask him to place the Monckton et al. study in the broader context of climate science contrarianism. He told me, “In my book, I show that mainstream climate models have been very accurate at projecting changes in global surface temperatures. Monckton et al. created a problem to solve by misrepresenting those model projections and hence inaccurately claiming that they “run hot.” The entire premise of their paper is based on an inaccuracy, and it just goes downhill from there.”

This is not Nuccitelli’s first rodeo when it comes to the Monckton camp. “It’s perhaps worth noting that these same four authors (Legates, Soon, Briggs, and Monckton) wrote another error-riddled paper two years ago, purporting to critique the paper my colleagues and I published in 2013, finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature,” he told me. “The journal quickly published a response from Daniel Bedford and John Cook, detailing the many errors those four authors had made. There seems to be a pattern in which Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs somehow manage to publish error-riddled papers in peer-reviewed journals, and scientists are forced to spend their time correcting those errors.”

Monckton et al cherry-picked the available literature, thus ignoring a plethora of standing arguments and analysis that would have contradicted their study. They get the paleoclimate data wrong, ignore over 90% of the climate system (the ocean), selected inappropriate parameters, and seem unaware of prior work comparing models and data. Monckton et al also fail to provide a useful alternative valid model.

Monckton et al failed in their attempt to demonstrate that IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity run hot. Their alternative model does not perform well, and is strongly biased in one direction. They estimate future warming based on “assumptions developed using a logically flawed justification narrative rather than physical analysis,” according to Richardson et al. “The key conclusions are directly contradicted by observations and 450 cannot be considered credible.”

Also of interest

Aside from the obvious and significant problems with the Monckton et al paper, it is also worth noting that the authors of that work are well known as “climate science deniers” or “contrarians.” You can find out more about Soon here. Monckton has a long history of attacking mainstream climate science as well as the scientists themselves. To be fair, it is also worth noting that two of the new paper’s authors have been engaged in this discussion as well. John Abraham has been eDebating Monckton for some time. (See also this conversation with me, John Abraham, and Kevin Zelnio.)

Author Dana Nuccitelli is the author of this recent book on climate science deniers and models.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1FpIk2a

La integración de la justicia ambiental en nuestra labor

Por Cynthia Giles y Jim Jones

Trabajamos para lograr nuestra misión de proteger la salud pública y el medio ambiente en un sinnúmero de maneras al proveer subvenciones a los estados, programas de incentivos y asistencia técnica, sin embargo también emitimos normas. Y como estamos comprometidos con la justicia ambiental, queremos asegurar que nuestras normas sirvan a toda la gente, inclusive aquellos que muchas veces están más impactados por los daños ambientales y las preocupaciones de salud pública.

Hemos estado integrando la justicia ambiental a nuestras normas por años. Hoy, estamos avanzando nuestros esfuerzos para publicar nuestras Directrices para considerar la justicia ambiental durante el desarrollo de una acción normativa. Usando nuestras directrices interinas de julio del 2010 como fundamento, esta es una fuente esencial que ofrece a nuestros reglamentarios las herramientas, guías y estrategias específicas que ellos necesitan para considerar la justicia ambiental. Esta guía final ayuda a ampliar el alcance y el impacto que tenemos en las comunidades estadounidenses.

Estas directrices también continuarán el compromiso que hemos tenido con la justicia ambiental desde que el Presidente Clinton firmara la Orden Ejecutiva 12898  la cual ordena a las agencias federales a abordar los efectos desproporcionalmente elevados y adversos a la salud humana y el medio ambiente en las poblaciones minoritarias y de bajos ingresos. Durante el pasado año, nuestros equipos reglamentarios han estado laborando arduamente en esfuerzos de alcance público en las comunidades, informándose acerca de los impactos ambientales que les afectan, y desarrollando normas con estas consideraciones en mente. He aquí algunos ejemplos:

• Con anterioridad este año, publicamos nuestra Definición de la Norma de Desechos Sólidos final, que abordaba los impactos desproporcionados en poblaciones minoritarias y de bajos ingresos donde los desechos peligrosos son administrados incorrectamente e enviados a reciclar. Realizamos un análisis riguroso de justicia ambiental donde examinamos la ubicación de instalaciones de reciclaje y su proximidad y potencial impacto a los residentes adyacentes. Este proceso condujo a la norma final que fomenta el reciclaje seguro y legítimo y ofrece a las comunidades una voz antes de que comiencen las operaciones de reciclaje

• En junio del 2014, propusimos una norma actualizada para lograr mayores controles en las emisiones de aire tóxico de las refinerías de petróleo. Además de evaluar los lecciones aprendidas de los acuerdos de acatamiento y el análisis de datos del esfuerzo extenso de recopilación de datos, realizamos unos esfuerzos robustos de alcance público comunitario Estos incluyeron llamadas de conferencias comunitarias, seminarios web, esfuerzos de capacitación, y audiencias públicas para aprender de las personas afectadas y ayudarles a entender cómo la propuesta norma les ayudaría. La propuesta norma incluye requisitos que beneficiarán estas comunidades, incluyendo control de emisiones para los tanques de almacenamiento, antorchas y unidades de coquización; una mayor eficiencia de combustión en las operaciones de antorchas; y el monitoreo de concentraciones de aire a lo largo de las vallas de las instalaciones de refinerías.

• En marzo del 2014, publicamos una propuesta norma para revisar el Estándar de Protección del Trabajador Agrícola diseñado para proteger los dos millones de trabajadores agrícolas y sus familias de la exposición a pesticidas. Ofrecerá a los trabajadores agrícolas protecciones de salud similares a las que ya disfrutan los obreros en otros trabajos. Al desarrollar las normas propuestas y finales, buscaremos el insumo amplio de la comunidad de trabajadores agrícolas. La norma final anticipada para este otoño ayudará a proteger a los trabajadores agrícolas y a sus familias mediante una mejor capacitación, mayor información, mejores protecciones de seguridad, estándares de cumplimiento modernizados.

Estos son tan solo tres ejemplos –vea otros al leer nuestro memorando—al personal de la EPA anunciando las directrices finales. Tomamos muy en serio nuestra obligación de liderar en materia de justicia ambiental, y de servir como ejemplo para los demás. La administradora McCarthy ha fijado la pauta y estas directrices finales apoyan su liderazgo. Es otra manera en la cual estamos haciendo nuestra parte para cumplir con el espíritu de la Orden Ejecutiva 12898 y para proteger nuestro ambienta y el derecho fundamental de todos en Estados Unidos a respirar un aire limpio, beber agua limpia y vivir en una tierra limpia.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pZD9

Por Cynthia Giles y Jim Jones

Trabajamos para lograr nuestra misión de proteger la salud pública y el medio ambiente en un sinnúmero de maneras al proveer subvenciones a los estados, programas de incentivos y asistencia técnica, sin embargo también emitimos normas. Y como estamos comprometidos con la justicia ambiental, queremos asegurar que nuestras normas sirvan a toda la gente, inclusive aquellos que muchas veces están más impactados por los daños ambientales y las preocupaciones de salud pública.

Hemos estado integrando la justicia ambiental a nuestras normas por años. Hoy, estamos avanzando nuestros esfuerzos para publicar nuestras Directrices para considerar la justicia ambiental durante el desarrollo de una acción normativa. Usando nuestras directrices interinas de julio del 2010 como fundamento, esta es una fuente esencial que ofrece a nuestros reglamentarios las herramientas, guías y estrategias específicas que ellos necesitan para considerar la justicia ambiental. Esta guía final ayuda a ampliar el alcance y el impacto que tenemos en las comunidades estadounidenses.

Estas directrices también continuarán el compromiso que hemos tenido con la justicia ambiental desde que el Presidente Clinton firmara la Orden Ejecutiva 12898  la cual ordena a las agencias federales a abordar los efectos desproporcionalmente elevados y adversos a la salud humana y el medio ambiente en las poblaciones minoritarias y de bajos ingresos. Durante el pasado año, nuestros equipos reglamentarios han estado laborando arduamente en esfuerzos de alcance público en las comunidades, informándose acerca de los impactos ambientales que les afectan, y desarrollando normas con estas consideraciones en mente. He aquí algunos ejemplos:

• Con anterioridad este año, publicamos nuestra Definición de la Norma de Desechos Sólidos final, que abordaba los impactos desproporcionados en poblaciones minoritarias y de bajos ingresos donde los desechos peligrosos son administrados incorrectamente e enviados a reciclar. Realizamos un análisis riguroso de justicia ambiental donde examinamos la ubicación de instalaciones de reciclaje y su proximidad y potencial impacto a los residentes adyacentes. Este proceso condujo a la norma final que fomenta el reciclaje seguro y legítimo y ofrece a las comunidades una voz antes de que comiencen las operaciones de reciclaje

• En junio del 2014, propusimos una norma actualizada para lograr mayores controles en las emisiones de aire tóxico de las refinerías de petróleo. Además de evaluar los lecciones aprendidas de los acuerdos de acatamiento y el análisis de datos del esfuerzo extenso de recopilación de datos, realizamos unos esfuerzos robustos de alcance público comunitario Estos incluyeron llamadas de conferencias comunitarias, seminarios web, esfuerzos de capacitación, y audiencias públicas para aprender de las personas afectadas y ayudarles a entender cómo la propuesta norma les ayudaría. La propuesta norma incluye requisitos que beneficiarán estas comunidades, incluyendo control de emisiones para los tanques de almacenamiento, antorchas y unidades de coquización; una mayor eficiencia de combustión en las operaciones de antorchas; y el monitoreo de concentraciones de aire a lo largo de las vallas de las instalaciones de refinerías.

• En marzo del 2014, publicamos una propuesta norma para revisar el Estándar de Protección del Trabajador Agrícola diseñado para proteger los dos millones de trabajadores agrícolas y sus familias de la exposición a pesticidas. Ofrecerá a los trabajadores agrícolas protecciones de salud similares a las que ya disfrutan los obreros en otros trabajos. Al desarrollar las normas propuestas y finales, buscaremos el insumo amplio de la comunidad de trabajadores agrícolas. La norma final anticipada para este otoño ayudará a proteger a los trabajadores agrícolas y a sus familias mediante una mejor capacitación, mayor información, mejores protecciones de seguridad, estándares de cumplimiento modernizados.

Estos son tan solo tres ejemplos –vea otros al leer nuestro memorando—al personal de la EPA anunciando las directrices finales. Tomamos muy en serio nuestra obligación de liderar en materia de justicia ambiental, y de servir como ejemplo para los demás. La administradora McCarthy ha fijado la pauta y estas directrices finales apoyan su liderazgo. Es otra manera en la cual estamos haciendo nuestra parte para cumplir con el espíritu de la Orden Ejecutiva 12898 y para proteger nuestro ambienta y el derecho fundamental de todos en Estados Unidos a respirar un aire limpio, beber agua limpia y vivir en una tierra limpia.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pZD9

Integrating Environmental Justice Into Our Work

By Cynthia Giles and Jim Jones

We work to achieve our mission to protect public health and the environment in a myriad of ways by providing for grants to states, incentive programs, and technical assistance – but we also issue rules. And, because we’re committed to environmental justice, we want to ensure that our regulations serve all people, including those who are often the most impacted by environmental harm and public health concerns.

We’ve been integrating environmental justice into our rules for years. Today, we’re advancing our efforts by releasing our final Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action.

Read more

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1HIxOEv

By Cynthia Giles and Jim Jones

We work to achieve our mission to protect public health and the environment in a myriad of ways by providing for grants to states, incentive programs, and technical assistance – but we also issue rules. And, because we’re committed to environmental justice, we want to ensure that our regulations serve all people, including those who are often the most impacted by environmental harm and public health concerns.

We’ve been integrating environmental justice into our rules for years. Today, we’re advancing our efforts by releasing our final Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action.

Read more

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1HIxOEv

Integrating Environmental Justice Into Our Work

We work to achieve our mission to protect public health and the environment in a myriad of ways by providing for grants to states, incentive programs, and technical assistance – but we also issue rules. And, because we’re committed to environmental justice, we want to ensure that our regulations serve all people, including those who are often the most impacted by environmental harm and public health concerns.

We’ve been integrating environmental justice into our rules for years. Today, we’re advancing our efforts by releasing our final Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action. Building on our July 2010 interim guidance, this is an essential resource that gives our rulemaking teams the tools, guidance and specific strategies they need to consider environmental justice. This final guidance helps us expand the scope and impact we have in American communities.

The guidance will also continue the commitment we’ve had to environmental justice since President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 directing federal agencies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Over the past year, our rulemaking teams have been hard at work engaging communities, learning about the environmental impacts that affect them, and developing rules with these considerations in mind. Here are a few examples:

• Earlier this year, we released our final Definition of Solid Waste Rule, which addresses the disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations from when hazardous materials are mismanaged and sent to recycling. We conducted a rigorous environmental justice analysis that examined the location of recycling facilities and their proximity and potential impact to adjacent residents. This process led to a final rule that encourages safe and legitimate recycling, and that gives communities a voice prior to recycling operations beginning.
• In June of 2014, we proposed an updated rule to achieve further controls on toxic air emissions from petroleum refineries. In addition to evaluating the lessons learned from enforcement settlements, and data analysis from an extensive data collection effort, we conducted robust community engagement. This included community conference calls, webinars, trainings and public hearings to learn from those affected, and help them understand how the proposed rule could help. The proposed rule includes requirements that will benefit these communities, including emission controls for storage tanks, flares and coking units; higher combustion efficiency for flaring operations; and monitoring of air concentrations at the fenceline of refinery facilities.
• In March of 2014, we published a proposed rule to revise the current Worker Protection Standard, designed to protect the nation’s two million farmworkers and their families from exposure to pesticides. It will afford farm workers similar health protections to those already enjoyed by workers in other jobs. In developing the proposed and final rules, we sought extensive input from the farmworker community. The final rule expected this fall will help protect farm workers and their families through better training, increased access to information, improved safety precautions, and modernized compliance standards.

These are just three examples – see more by reading our memo to EPA staff announcing the final guidance. We take seriously our obligation to lead on environmental justice, and to set an example for others. Administrator McCarthy has set the tone, and this final guidance supports her leadership. It’s another way we’re doing our part to fulfill the spirit of Executive Order 12898, and to protect our environment and every American’s fundamental right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live on clean land.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pZmH

We work to achieve our mission to protect public health and the environment in a myriad of ways by providing for grants to states, incentive programs, and technical assistance – but we also issue rules. And, because we’re committed to environmental justice, we want to ensure that our regulations serve all people, including those who are often the most impacted by environmental harm and public health concerns.

We’ve been integrating environmental justice into our rules for years. Today, we’re advancing our efforts by releasing our final Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action. Building on our July 2010 interim guidance, this is an essential resource that gives our rulemaking teams the tools, guidance and specific strategies they need to consider environmental justice. This final guidance helps us expand the scope and impact we have in American communities.

The guidance will also continue the commitment we’ve had to environmental justice since President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 directing federal agencies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Over the past year, our rulemaking teams have been hard at work engaging communities, learning about the environmental impacts that affect them, and developing rules with these considerations in mind. Here are a few examples:

• Earlier this year, we released our final Definition of Solid Waste Rule, which addresses the disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations from when hazardous materials are mismanaged and sent to recycling. We conducted a rigorous environmental justice analysis that examined the location of recycling facilities and their proximity and potential impact to adjacent residents. This process led to a final rule that encourages safe and legitimate recycling, and that gives communities a voice prior to recycling operations beginning.
• In June of 2014, we proposed an updated rule to achieve further controls on toxic air emissions from petroleum refineries. In addition to evaluating the lessons learned from enforcement settlements, and data analysis from an extensive data collection effort, we conducted robust community engagement. This included community conference calls, webinars, trainings and public hearings to learn from those affected, and help them understand how the proposed rule could help. The proposed rule includes requirements that will benefit these communities, including emission controls for storage tanks, flares and coking units; higher combustion efficiency for flaring operations; and monitoring of air concentrations at the fenceline of refinery facilities.
• In March of 2014, we published a proposed rule to revise the current Worker Protection Standard, designed to protect the nation’s two million farmworkers and their families from exposure to pesticides. It will afford farm workers similar health protections to those already enjoyed by workers in other jobs. In developing the proposed and final rules, we sought extensive input from the farmworker community. The final rule expected this fall will help protect farm workers and their families through better training, increased access to information, improved safety precautions, and modernized compliance standards.

These are just three examples – see more by reading our memo to EPA staff announcing the final guidance. We take seriously our obligation to lead on environmental justice, and to set an example for others. Administrator McCarthy has set the tone, and this final guidance supports her leadership. It’s another way we’re doing our part to fulfill the spirit of Executive Order 12898, and to protect our environment and every American’s fundamental right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live on clean land.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pZmH

Chemical Facility Safety is a Shared Commitment

Recently I attended meetings in Austin, TX organized by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). CCPS is part of the not-for-profit American Institute of Chemical Engineers that was formed 30 years ago in the wake of the Bhopal, India chemical release tragedy, to eliminate chemical facility major process safety incidents.

During the first session, I was asked about collaborative opportunities between EPA and CCPS to advance CCPS’s Vision 20/20. Vision 20/20 looks into the not-too-distant future to describe how the right process safety can be delivered when it is collectively and strongly supported by industry, regulators, academia, and the community worldwide. I identified a number of areas where EPA can collaborate with stakeholders to reduce chemical facility releases and deliver Vision 20/20. For example, Vision 20/20 calls for a range of stakeholders to work together “to effectively remove barriers to reporting of incidents, develop reporting databases, and promote mutual understanding of risks and effective process safety systems.” EPA strongly supports this concept and made it a core recommendation in the report for the president, Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment. This federal interagency working group report resulted from President Obama’s Executive Order 13650,Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.

There is a tremendous nexus between Vision 20/20 and the report for the president. The federal working group identified the shared commitment for safety between companies, local preparedness officials, responders, federal government and state government that requires engaging through mutual sharing of information and mutual understanding of risks. This relates to another important element of Vision 20/20: Enhanced Stakeholder Knowledge, which “allows the public to effectively challenge industry to prevent process safety incidents.” I believe that EPA can be a tremendous partner to CCPS to advance this goal and simultaneously advance the commitments articulated in the report for the president.

Other areas that I highlighted from CCPS’ Vision 2020 included the need for strenuous verification by independent parties of engineered systems and process safety management to help companies evaluate their process safety programs as a supplement to internal audits. A committed culture includes executive, managers, supervisors and all employees, as well as vibrant management systems that emphasize vulnerability of accidents and enable a consistent adherence to process safety.    As documented in the report for the president, accidents continue to occur that cause death and property damage.  These incidents are infrequent but the consequences are severe to local communities. Vision 20/20’s emphasis on a vibrant management system engrained throughout an organization based on incident vulnerability is welcome and would advance chemical plant safety. One strategy identified in Vision 20/20 is enhanced application and sharing of lessons learned: “to reduce incidents, everyone needs to continually learn”.  I agree that we learn from accidents, near misses, industry benchmarking and success stories.

The collaboration with CCPS to advance the operationalization of Vision 20/20 is precisely the type of actions envisioned by the commitment in the report for the president. The dialogue needs to continue. As duly noted in the title of the report, chemical facility safety and security is a shared commitment. Through the combined efforts of all stakeholders, we can make a positive difference in, near, and around chemical facilities.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pWXY

Recently I attended meetings in Austin, TX organized by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). CCPS is part of the not-for-profit American Institute of Chemical Engineers that was formed 30 years ago in the wake of the Bhopal, India chemical release tragedy, to eliminate chemical facility major process safety incidents.

During the first session, I was asked about collaborative opportunities between EPA and CCPS to advance CCPS’s Vision 20/20. Vision 20/20 looks into the not-too-distant future to describe how the right process safety can be delivered when it is collectively and strongly supported by industry, regulators, academia, and the community worldwide. I identified a number of areas where EPA can collaborate with stakeholders to reduce chemical facility releases and deliver Vision 20/20. For example, Vision 20/20 calls for a range of stakeholders to work together “to effectively remove barriers to reporting of incidents, develop reporting databases, and promote mutual understanding of risks and effective process safety systems.” EPA strongly supports this concept and made it a core recommendation in the report for the president, Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment. This federal interagency working group report resulted from President Obama’s Executive Order 13650,Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.

There is a tremendous nexus between Vision 20/20 and the report for the president. The federal working group identified the shared commitment for safety between companies, local preparedness officials, responders, federal government and state government that requires engaging through mutual sharing of information and mutual understanding of risks. This relates to another important element of Vision 20/20: Enhanced Stakeholder Knowledge, which “allows the public to effectively challenge industry to prevent process safety incidents.” I believe that EPA can be a tremendous partner to CCPS to advance this goal and simultaneously advance the commitments articulated in the report for the president.

Other areas that I highlighted from CCPS’ Vision 2020 included the need for strenuous verification by independent parties of engineered systems and process safety management to help companies evaluate their process safety programs as a supplement to internal audits. A committed culture includes executive, managers, supervisors and all employees, as well as vibrant management systems that emphasize vulnerability of accidents and enable a consistent adherence to process safety.    As documented in the report for the president, accidents continue to occur that cause death and property damage.  These incidents are infrequent but the consequences are severe to local communities. Vision 20/20’s emphasis on a vibrant management system engrained throughout an organization based on incident vulnerability is welcome and would advance chemical plant safety. One strategy identified in Vision 20/20 is enhanced application and sharing of lessons learned: “to reduce incidents, everyone needs to continually learn”.  I agree that we learn from accidents, near misses, industry benchmarking and success stories.

The collaboration with CCPS to advance the operationalization of Vision 20/20 is precisely the type of actions envisioned by the commitment in the report for the president. The dialogue needs to continue. As duly noted in the title of the report, chemical facility safety and security is a shared commitment. Through the combined efforts of all stakeholders, we can make a positive difference in, near, and around chemical facilities.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1Q3pWXY

The secrets of night-shining clouds

Glowing silver-blue clouds that sometimes light up summer night skies at high latitudes, after sunset and before sunrise, are called noctilucent clouds. Also known as night shining clouds, they form in the highest reaches of the atmosphere – the mesosphere – as much as 50 miles (80 km) above the Earth’s surface. They’re seen at high latitudes – say, about 45 degrees N. or S. – from May through August in the Northern Hemisphere and from November through February in the Southern Hemisphere. In 2015, the noctilucent cloud season has already begun. See the photos below. And follow the links below to learn more about this beautiful, seasonal phenomenon.

What are notilucent clouds?

What does the science say?

How can I see notilucent clouds?

Sandor Botor in Sweden captured notilucent clouds on June 1, 2015. Thank you, Sandor!

View larger. | Andy Stables on the Isle of Skye, Scotland captured these noctilucent clouds on May 28, 2015. Visit Andy’s Facebook page to see his photos of auroras, noctilucent clouds, comets, meteors, the Milky Way and more in the night sky from the Isle of Skye.

Noctilucent clouds streaming across the sky in Utrecht, The Netherlands on June 16, 2009. Credit: Robert Wielinga (via NASA).

What are notilucent clouds? Noctilucent clouds are thought to be made of ice crystals that form on fine dust particles from meteors. They can only form when temperatures are incredibly low and when there’s water available to form ice crystals.

Why do these clouds – which require such cold temperatures – form in the summer? It’s because of the dynamics of the atmosphere. You actually get the coldest temperatures of the year near the poles in summer at that height in the mesosphere.

Here’s how it works: during summer, air close to the ground gets heated and rises. Since atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude, the rising air expands. When the air expands, it also cools down. This, along with other processes in the upper atmosphere, drives the air even higher causing it to cool even more. As a result, temperatures in the mesosphere can plunge to as low as -210°F (-134°C).

In the Northern Hemisphere, the mesosphere often reaches these temperatures by mid-May, in most years.

Since the clouds are so sensitive to the atmospheric temperatures, they can act as a proxy for information about the wind circulation that causes these temperatures. They can tell scientists that the circulation exists first of all, and tell us something about the strength of the circulation.

A composite image, taken by AIM, of noctilucent clouds above the Southern Pole on December 31, 2009. Image via NASA/HU/VT/CU LASP

What does the science say? Scientists studying these clouds have included those from NASA’s AIM (Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere) satellite. This satellite, launched in 2007, has observed noctilucent clouds using several onboard instruments to collect information such as temperature, atmospheric gases, ice crystal size, changes in the clouds, as well as the amount of meteoric space dust that enters the atmosphere.

Scientists have used data from this satellite to study the details of how noctilucent are formed and why they change over time. In 2014, they announced they had discovered unexpected teleconnections in noctilucent clouds. For example, Cora Randall, AIM science team member, said in April 2014:

… we have found that the winter air temperature in Indianapolis, Indiana, is well correlated with the frequency of noctilucent clouds over Antarctica.

The video below has more about the teleconnections in noctilucent clouds.

When the sun is below the ground horizon but visible from the high altitude of noctilucent clouds, sunlight illuminates these clouds, causing them to glow in the dark night sky. Illustration via NASA.

How can I see notilucent clouds? If you want to see the clouds, what steps should you take? Remember, you have to be at a relatively high latitude on Earth to see them: between about 45° and 60° North or South latitude.

For best results, look for these clouds from about May through August in the Northern Hemisphere, and from November through February in the Southern Hemisphere.

Noctilucent clouds are primarily visible when the sun is just below the horizon, say, from about 90 minutes to about two hours after sunset or before sunrise. At such times, when the sun is below the ground horizon but visible from the high altitude of noctilucent clouds, sunlight illuminates these clouds, causing them to glow in the dark night sky.

Noctilucent clouds can be seen from space, too. Astronauts in the International Space Station (ISS) took this photo on January 5, 2013, when ISS was over the Pacific Ocean south of French Polynesia. Below the brightly-lit noctilucent clouds, across the center of the image, the pale orange band is the stratosphere. Image via NASA

Noctilucent clouds over the Southern Hemisphere on January 30, 2010, taken by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station. Image credit: NASA.

Noctilucent clouds captured from Soomaa National Park, Estonia, in 2009. Image via Martin Koitmäe via Wikimedia Commons.

Bottom line: Noctilucent or night-shining clouds form in the highest reaches of the atmosphere – the mesosphere – as much as 50 miles (80 km) above the Earth’s surface. They’re seen during summer in polar regions.

Electric-blue clouds appear over Antarctica

Video: Noctilucent or night shining clouds in motion

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1ytqbj9

Glowing silver-blue clouds that sometimes light up summer night skies at high latitudes, after sunset and before sunrise, are called noctilucent clouds. Also known as night shining clouds, they form in the highest reaches of the atmosphere – the mesosphere – as much as 50 miles (80 km) above the Earth’s surface. They’re seen at high latitudes – say, about 45 degrees N. or S. – from May through August in the Northern Hemisphere and from November through February in the Southern Hemisphere. In 2015, the noctilucent cloud season has already begun. See the photos below. And follow the links below to learn more about this beautiful, seasonal phenomenon.

What are notilucent clouds?

What does the science say?

How can I see notilucent clouds?

Sandor Botor in Sweden captured notilucent clouds on June 1, 2015. Thank you, Sandor!

View larger. | Andy Stables on the Isle of Skye, Scotland captured these noctilucent clouds on May 28, 2015. Visit Andy’s Facebook page to see his photos of auroras, noctilucent clouds, comets, meteors, the Milky Way and more in the night sky from the Isle of Skye.

Noctilucent clouds streaming across the sky in Utrecht, The Netherlands on June 16, 2009. Credit: Robert Wielinga (via NASA).

What are notilucent clouds? Noctilucent clouds are thought to be made of ice crystals that form on fine dust particles from meteors. They can only form when temperatures are incredibly low and when there’s water available to form ice crystals.

Why do these clouds – which require such cold temperatures – form in the summer? It’s because of the dynamics of the atmosphere. You actually get the coldest temperatures of the year near the poles in summer at that height in the mesosphere.

Here’s how it works: during summer, air close to the ground gets heated and rises. Since atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude, the rising air expands. When the air expands, it also cools down. This, along with other processes in the upper atmosphere, drives the air even higher causing it to cool even more. As a result, temperatures in the mesosphere can plunge to as low as -210°F (-134°C).

In the Northern Hemisphere, the mesosphere often reaches these temperatures by mid-May, in most years.

Since the clouds are so sensitive to the atmospheric temperatures, they can act as a proxy for information about the wind circulation that causes these temperatures. They can tell scientists that the circulation exists first of all, and tell us something about the strength of the circulation.

A composite image, taken by AIM, of noctilucent clouds above the Southern Pole on December 31, 2009. Image via NASA/HU/VT/CU LASP

What does the science say? Scientists studying these clouds have included those from NASA’s AIM (Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere) satellite. This satellite, launched in 2007, has observed noctilucent clouds using several onboard instruments to collect information such as temperature, atmospheric gases, ice crystal size, changes in the clouds, as well as the amount of meteoric space dust that enters the atmosphere.

Scientists have used data from this satellite to study the details of how noctilucent are formed and why they change over time. In 2014, they announced they had discovered unexpected teleconnections in noctilucent clouds. For example, Cora Randall, AIM science team member, said in April 2014:

… we have found that the winter air temperature in Indianapolis, Indiana, is well correlated with the frequency of noctilucent clouds over Antarctica.

The video below has more about the teleconnections in noctilucent clouds.

When the sun is below the ground horizon but visible from the high altitude of noctilucent clouds, sunlight illuminates these clouds, causing them to glow in the dark night sky. Illustration via NASA.

How can I see notilucent clouds? If you want to see the clouds, what steps should you take? Remember, you have to be at a relatively high latitude on Earth to see them: between about 45° and 60° North or South latitude.

For best results, look for these clouds from about May through August in the Northern Hemisphere, and from November through February in the Southern Hemisphere.

Noctilucent clouds are primarily visible when the sun is just below the horizon, say, from about 90 minutes to about two hours after sunset or before sunrise. At such times, when the sun is below the ground horizon but visible from the high altitude of noctilucent clouds, sunlight illuminates these clouds, causing them to glow in the dark night sky.

Noctilucent clouds can be seen from space, too. Astronauts in the International Space Station (ISS) took this photo on January 5, 2013, when ISS was over the Pacific Ocean south of French Polynesia. Below the brightly-lit noctilucent clouds, across the center of the image, the pale orange band is the stratosphere. Image via NASA

Noctilucent clouds over the Southern Hemisphere on January 30, 2010, taken by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station. Image credit: NASA.

Noctilucent clouds captured from Soomaa National Park, Estonia, in 2009. Image via Martin Koitmäe via Wikimedia Commons.

Bottom line: Noctilucent or night-shining clouds form in the highest reaches of the atmosphere – the mesosphere – as much as 50 miles (80 km) above the Earth’s surface. They’re seen during summer in polar regions.

Electric-blue clouds appear over Antarctica

Video: Noctilucent or night shining clouds in motion

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1ytqbj9

NASA Unveils Tech Roadmaps

By Joshua Buck & Sarah Ramsey
NASA

NASA has released the agency’s 2015 technology roadmaps laying out the promising new technologies that will help NASA achieve its aeronautics, science and human exploration missions for the next 20 years, including the agency’s journey to Mars.

The agency is seeking public comment on the draft roadmaps to increase awareness, generate innovative solutions for space exploration and scientific discovery, and inspire public involvement in America’s space program. Public input will be accepted until June 10 via this Request for Information Portal.

“The technology candidates identified in the roadmaps provide capabilities that can be leveraged, reused and built upon, enabling more complex operations over time in the exploration of more distant destinations in the solar system ” said David Miller, chief technologist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “NASA’s continued investment in technology development will provide critical capabilities that create new jobs and businesses, inspire our youth and lead to futures where we evolve into a species that lives and works throughout the solar system.”

The draft 2015 roadmaps expand and update the 2012 roadmaps, providing extensive details about anticipated NASA mission capabilities and associated technology development needs. The roadmaps are a key part of NASA’s Strategic Technology Investment Plan, and lays out the strategy, guiding principles and priorities for developing technologies that are essential to NASA’s mission and help achieve national goals. Many of the technologies developed will also help meet the needs of other government agencies as well as support the growth of the American commercial space industry.

Read the draft 2015 NASA technology roadmaps
Learn more about NASA’s technology program

Story and information provided by NASA
Follow Armed with Science on Facebook and Twitter!
———-

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1ERWwA9

By Joshua Buck & Sarah Ramsey
NASA

NASA has released the agency’s 2015 technology roadmaps laying out the promising new technologies that will help NASA achieve its aeronautics, science and human exploration missions for the next 20 years, including the agency’s journey to Mars.

The agency is seeking public comment on the draft roadmaps to increase awareness, generate innovative solutions for space exploration and scientific discovery, and inspire public involvement in America’s space program. Public input will be accepted until June 10 via this Request for Information Portal.

“The technology candidates identified in the roadmaps provide capabilities that can be leveraged, reused and built upon, enabling more complex operations over time in the exploration of more distant destinations in the solar system ” said David Miller, chief technologist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “NASA’s continued investment in technology development will provide critical capabilities that create new jobs and businesses, inspire our youth and lead to futures where we evolve into a species that lives and works throughout the solar system.”

The draft 2015 roadmaps expand and update the 2012 roadmaps, providing extensive details about anticipated NASA mission capabilities and associated technology development needs. The roadmaps are a key part of NASA’s Strategic Technology Investment Plan, and lays out the strategy, guiding principles and priorities for developing technologies that are essential to NASA’s mission and help achieve national goals. Many of the technologies developed will also help meet the needs of other government agencies as well as support the growth of the American commercial space industry.

Read the draft 2015 NASA technology roadmaps
Learn more about NASA’s technology program

Story and information provided by NASA
Follow Armed with Science on Facebook and Twitter!
———-

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1ERWwA9