ExxonMobil Refinery Explosion in Torrance CA 2015

Subtitle:  Increased Fines For Violations Is A Better Solution

The basic facts:  the 155,000 BPD oil refinery owned by ExxonMobil and located in Torrance, California (suburb of Los Angeles) had a large but non-fatal explosion in February, 2015 when hydrocarbon vapors that had flowed into an electrostatic precipitator system ignited and exploded.  Four workers were injured.   The refinery has been operating at reduced-capacity ever since, with the fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) unit shut down until adequate repairs are made and government regulatory agencies are satisfied that the refinery can operate safely again. 

Just two days ago (13 January, 2015), a public meeting was held in Torrance at which the Chemical Safety Board presented its findings on the explosion.  A newspaper account of that meeting can be read here (see link). 

As a former practicing, and consulting refinery process engineer for many years, and much experience in dozens of similar refineries world-wide, I take keyboard under fingers here to offer some insights.   First, a word of my background and qualifications that I have never before shared in public. 

Many years ago, in approximately 1994 or '95, 1990 (verified) the People's Republic of China's national oil company, refining division, surveyed and analyzed all of the country's refineries to determine what could be done to modernize, improve, and make the refineries more efficient.   First, the effort was internal, using the best Chinese engineers and professors.   Following that effort, the Chinese government wanted an outside expert opinion on the matter.   They solicited bids for the work from consultants around the world, including (as I recall) from Japan, the UK, the US, and other nations.  Within the US, the little consulting company where I worked (20 engineers), received an invitation to bid.  To make a long story short, my company won the award and my boss and I were soon on a plane to Beijing for a three-week consulting trip. 

We had (and still have, in my case  (note: sadly, Dick Moriarty passed away)  ) extensive knowledge of oil refineries, and had performed many such operating and profit improvement studies on refineries world-wide.  We looked at refineries from start to finish, crude storage and distillation, to products blending and all off-sites units.   What we did not know was that the Chinese national television station brought a full crew with cameras, lights, and microphones to record our introductions on our first morning of the Chinese refinery improvement consulting project.   The head Chinese dignitary made a speech on camera, and a few others made speeches, then a translator told my boss that he was next.   Just before my boss spoke, the last speaker spoke Chinese first, then English for our benefit. He described the process just above of the Chinese effort to improve their refineries and their need for an outside opinion.   He ended by saying, "And now our distinguished foreign consultants will make their comments."   (I will never forget that phrase, Distinguished Foreign Consultants.)

My boss looked at me, and said to the camera something very short, thanked our hosts for selecting us, and ended by saying, "and now my associate Roger Sowell will describe the approach we take in our refinery profit improvement studies."   I was caught with no time to prepare, or think of what to say.   The lights were bright, the microphone was now in front of me, and the camera lens was aimed right at me. 

Richard "Dick" Moriarty and Roger Sowell
with Chinese refinery management
at Yanshan Refinery
Beijing, People's Republic of China, 1990

So, I echoed my boss' sentiments on how happy I was to be in China, for our company to be selected after a world-wide bidding process, and delighted to have the opportunity to work with the wonderful Chinese engineers and managers to study their petroleum refineries.   I described briefly the process we used, first to go over each process unit with the management to gain an understanding, then take the operating data back to the States for analysis using our proprietary computer software and our engineering experience.   

I seldom relate this story of the Chinese refinery consulting at Yanshan Petrochemical Corporation near Beijing. My point in relating this now is that I have the background to offer a considered opinion on events such as refinery explosions like the one at Torrance in February 2015.   (The Chinese company was not the only major international oil company that hired us, as we also consulted for PetroCanada, AGIP in Italy, Total in France, and many others).  

There are calls presently in California to tighten the regulatory scheme on safety in oil refineries.   As can be seen on the Chemical Safety Board's web pages, the CSB is comparing the Torrance refinery explosion to the earlier Chevron refinery fire and explosion in Richmond, California.   There is a concerted effort to have oil refineries redesigned and built in what is referred to as an inherently safe manner, or to use "inherently safer design."   One example of inherently safer design is to use non-corrodible materials of construction so that piping and vessel wall thickness does not decrease over time, leading to a rupture, leak, fire, or explosion.  Another example is to provide safety interlocks so that a fluid cannot flow because a valve cannot be opened when it is unsafe.    There is a great body of literature on inherently safer design.    It should be noted, and I make this point in my speeches on the matter, that requiring non-corrodible materials is extremely costly, as for example using titanium for all wetted piping and vessels instead of carbon steel or stainless steel.  

What occurred in Torrance at the refinery was a combination of bad human judgement and equipment failure.   Essentially, the FCC has three sections, a reactor section, a main column, and a vapor recovery unit.   The reactor section itself has two sections, the reactor and regenerator.  All of these are connected by various pipes.  In normal operation, feed oil enters the reactor, contacts catalyst and reacts, the products are separated from the spent catalyst, and the products flow into the main column for separation into various streams.  Vapor products from the main column are routed to the vapor recovery unit, where valuable products are separated from light gases.  The light gases are generally burned in the refinery as fuel. Spent catalyst from the reactor is sent to the regenerator, where the catalyst is contacted with hot air that burns carbon off of the catalyst.  The regenerated catalyst is recycled back to the reactor.  Combustion gases from the regenerator are sent to a power recovery turbine and from there to an air pollution control system, the electrostatic precipitator that exploded in Torrance.   This description is necessarily simplified, as there are many more items of equipment in an FCC unit.  

I worked in and with dozens of FCC units in my operating and consulting career.   They are fascinating units with many challenges and great opportunities for profit.  

The problem in Torrance occurred when part of the FCC unit was shut down for repairs, the reactor section.  However, and this is crucial, the main column was not shut down.   It is always required that flammable hydrocarbons be kept away from any work area, and the ExxonMobil team tried to do that.  They closed the correct valves, and injected steam into the reactor to form a barrier or seal against the hydrocarbons in the main column.   However, according to the CSB report released on 14 January 2016, (yesterday as this is written), steam leaked out of the power recovery turbine, or expander as it is also known, into the work area.  This interfered with the workers and may have been unsafe in itself, since a cloud of steam in a refinery obscures visibility and may make it difficult to breathe.   The steam rate was reduced so the workers could perform their tasks.  see link to CSB report. 

Meanwhile, and unknown to the personnel, a critical valve leaked and allowed hydrocarbon vapors to pass from the main column, through the reactor, pass the leaking valve (spent catalyst slide valve), through the regenerator and power recovery system and into the electrostatic precipitator.   A spark ignited the vapors, and an explosion resulted.    All of this is explained in great detail in the CSB report. 

For further context, there are more than 100 FCC units in the US today, with many more world-wide.  Almost every modern refinery has an electrostatic precipitator to meet the stringent air pollution requirements.   These FCC units operate approximately 3 years before being shut down for planned maintenance.   There are of course many other unplanned shutdowns, also.   But, using just 100 FCC units, and 3 years between shutdowns, there are approximately 33 units shut down each year, or roughly 3 every month.  Yet, there are very few explosions that result from these shutdowns, and subsequent startups.   One could argue that most planned shutdowns do not leave the main column full of hydrocarbons, so there is no need to insert a steam blanket to keep the hydrocarbons away from the workers.  Yet, there have been other occasions during which the procedure was performed with no harm or damage.   Clearly, then, the procedures are acceptable but something was different in this case.  

It appears, based on the CSB description of events, that the problem would not have occurred if the spent catalyst slide valve had not leaked, or if the steam had not leaked out of the expander, or a combination of both.   

It would be an over-reaction for regulating agencies to enact new, burdensome rules on the entire industry in an attempt to prevent an accident that almost never occurs.  Yet, there are calls for exactly that, to make the refining industry be subjected to inherently safer design.  

A better approach is to increase the penalties and fines for those who violate the existing safety regulations, so that a violation will be so costly that the workers, and managers, exercise extreme caution.    One example, was a refinery management that was interested in the impact on their US refinery of an explosion similar in scope and damage to the one in March, 2005 at BP's Texas City Refinery.   That explosion killed 17 people and hospitalized more than 100 others.   The injuries, deaths, and damage occurred after human error caused flammable liquids to overflow a vent pipe, vaporize, reach an ignition source and explode.   In that case, the equipment was fine but the humans made errors.   That explosion cost BP several billion dollars in fines, repairs, and legal settlements.   Such a sum would bankrupt many smaller companies.  That sobering fact was what was brought home to a different company.  Safety is vital, not only for the safety and lives of the employees, but surrounding communities, and also the ongoing viability of the company in many cases.  see link to BP Texas City Explosion of 2005. 

In the Torrance explosion, a combination of human decisions and equipment malfunction were at fault.  In retrospect, it would have been better to shut down the main column, and insert a blind flange in the line at the spent catalyst slide valve.  In short, make it almost impossible for any hydrocarbons to leak into an area where an ignition source could create a fire or explosion.  

UPDATE 1:  16 January 2016 - The Chair of the Chemical Safety Board wrote a letter to the editor opining that California refineries need more regulations to force them to operate safely (my paraphrase).  see link to the letter to editor. 

Chairperson Sutherland wrote:  

"If finalized as currently written, California’s new safeguards (i.e. regulations) for oil refineries would strengthen the state’s oversight by requiring management to take steps to reduce risks to the greatest extent feasible. And the draft regulations include some important safeguards on the forefront of refinery safety, such as requiring incident monitoring and tracking data.

I eagerly support Gov. Brown and the state Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) for initiating these changes. I believe the actions being taken here in California are some of the most substantial positive safety changes happening right now."    

Chairperson Sutherland added that "California can lead the nation in refinery safety," an indication that the new California regulations would, or should, be extended to all US refineries.   

I note in passing that Chairperson Sutherland has zero technical education, as her biographical sketch available online states she holds a BA in Political Science/Art History, as well as an MBA (in Information Technology) and a JD.  She is an attorney licensed in Maryland.  Her only brush with non-computer technology appears to be a brief stint at Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.  She has been Chair of CSB since August, 2015, a total of six months as of this date.  

 -- (end update 1)

Here ends this article for today.   There may be additional updates.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved. 

Wind Provides Record 40 Percent of Grid in Texas

Subtitle:  Flexible Gas-powered Grid Manages Quite Well

It was a typical winter cold front that came barreling into North Texas in late December, 2015.  Windy.  Cold.  For hour after hour after hour (approximately 20 consecutive hours.)   Western novels describe such cold winds and how cowboys and settlers cope.   This one was real.  The key point is that the wind turbines in Texas cranked it up and sent the power down the lines.  The electrical grid responded, with other generating plants backing down to keep the grid balanced.   There were no blackouts.  No brownouts.  No problems. 

An article from Scientific American see link describes the wind, the generation, and the Texas grid response.   ("Texas Sets New All-Time Wind Energy Record"). 

From the article:

"The latest record is news not only because wind provided nearly half of Texas’s electricity needs, but also that it did so for so many hours in a row. The sustained winds brought on by the low-pressure front caused wind energy production to exceed 10 gigawatts for essentially the entirety of December 20.

The duration of the record is a big deal because it shows that the rest of the Texas grid can handle a whole lot of wind energy for an extended period of time without suffering instability or brownouts that some predicted. Texas was able to balance the intermittent wind because it has a lot of natural gas power plants, which can adjust their power output more quickly than coal-fired power plants. Considering this fact, it seems like a happy coincidence that market forces are transitioning the U.S. electricity system toward a mix of renewable energy and natural gas."

There has been some activity in the blogosphere discussing renewable energy on the grids, and how the grids simply cannot handle more than some percent of intermittent generation such as wind and solar, once that percent reaches a tipping point.  Some articles discuss 20 percent as the point where problems begin, others suggest 30 percent.   Yet here, we see that Texas (a pretty big grid, by the way), managed 40 percent not just for a few moments, but for many hours, almost a full day.  

It is quite clear that grid designers and planners made a robust grid in Texas.   It is also notable that Texas has, as written here on SLB, a grid that by design can handle the intermittent renewables: very little coal and nuclear, the stubborn baseload plants that refuse to reduce their output.   Coal power is only 28 percent in Texas, and nuclear is only 11 percent.   Flexible-output natural gas power is the biggest source of generation at 48 percent.   

Related articles on SLB:

see link   Wind Energy Increasing in US - Grids Are Fine
see link   California Renewables Not Crashing the Grid  - 31 Percent and Grid is Fine
see link   Energy Supply in Post-Coal America - Renewables to Replace Coal in 20 Years
see link   Climate Denialism - Nuclear vs Renewable Energy
see link   Nuclear Until Renewables Can Shoulder The Load - A Bad Idea

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

More Global Warming Falsity - Lakes This Time

Subtitle: Lakes With Industrial Warming Included In Study

A new study of temperature changes in many of the world's freshwater lakes has been presented, with publication soon in Geophysical Research Letters.  The conclusion is the lakes are warming at an average rate of 0.3 degrees C per decade, or 3 degrees C per century.   see link    

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant near Granbury, Texas
Aerial view, image from  Google Images

What the scientists did here, as others who study and publish on the climate have also done with other topics, is a nice bit of over-inclusion of data.    The point at issue is measuring the warming of lakes that have a man-made warming influence, such as being used for cooling at a factory, or for an electrical power plant.   An example, and I do not know if this lake is included in the study, is the lake that provides cooling to the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant near Granbury, Texas (just south and a bit west of Dallas).   The lake is Squaw Creek Reservoir, and the nuclear plant is built on a peninsula reaching into the lake from the west.  (see photo).   Comanche Peak is not the only power plant that obtains cooling from a lake, as more than a few such nuclear plants draw cooling water from the Great Lakes; Cook Nuclear Power Plant on Lake Michigan is another example.   It is not only power plants that draw cooling water from large lakes, many industrial plants such as oil refineries also do this. 

It is simply wrong to perform a study to determine if, and how much, lakes' temperature changes and include those with known human influences.    This is exactly what those scientists who measure air temperature have done by including measurements in cities with their known artificial heating from human activities.  see link

Still, the lake temperature report apparently has a few lakes that showed a cooling trend.   Two reasons the scientists gave for this are 1) shading by trees that block the sun (highly unlikely for a large lake), and 2)  meltwater from glaciers.  (again, highly unlikely for the lakes in Florida that are cooling).    

What is also interesting is this statement:  
"Even lakes at the same latitude, which might be expected to have similar responses to warming, showed big differences. “That kind of variation was a big surprise,” " according to one scientist.  

This is interesting because it shows the same inconsistency as the adjacent cities not warming at the same rate, as documented earlier here on SLB. ( see link  and Figure 7 and surrounding text, showing adjacent cities in the US have very different rates of heating and sometimes cooling)

When the lakes' temperature study is published, it will be interesting to examine the data and determine which artificially heated lakes are included, and what the scientists will do about that.   Meanwhile, the pristine areas of the US show a cooling trend for air temperatures.   It will be quite interesting to watch the trend of pristine lake temperatures.   

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Wind Energy Increasing in US

Subtitle: Grids Are Fine

From time to time, the renewable energy discussion is, well, renewed and this is a good occasion to discuss some aspects.  To review: on SLB I have opined that the US energy supply for electricity will undergo a fundamental transformation within the next 20 years as economic coal supplies are consumed to exhaustion.  The replacement for the coal-fired power plants will be from natural gas and renewables, primarily wind turbines.  It is notable that coal provides almost 40 percent of the US electricity at this time.   There remains approximately 20 billion tons of economically mine-able coal in the US, and the annual consumption is just under 1 billion tons per year.  

Secondly, I have also opined here on SLB that the false-alarmism of Global Warming is (very likely) a distraction from the real problem, the coal exhaustion.  The proposed solution to Global Warming by the false-alarmists is to immediately cease all fossil fuel consumption.  However, one of their favorite themes is to install a vast fleet of nuclear power plants because those don't emit carbon dioxide (CO2).  That assertion is true, but only if one does not count all the CO2 that is required during the plant fabrication, assembly, and decommissioning.  (I have yet to see a nuclear plant be built without any diesel-powered heavy equipment.) 

Thirdly, I have opined here on SLB that the future of electrical utility grids will be ones that do not have slow-moving (or stubbornly NOT moving) baseload generation from nuclear plants and baseload coal plants.   In fact, a grid will have substantial, even insurmountable, problems with too much baseload.   That assertion is very much confirmed in the discussion below. 

A recent post and comments at Dr. Judith Curry's blog, ClimateEtc. discussed the supposed litany of disasters that await any society that installs non-rotating electrical generators such as wind and solar.    I have watched and read many such articles on ClimateEtc in the past couple of years, and generally have not commented.    I could be wrong, but it appears to me that most of those who comment there are anti-renewable energy, and pro-nuclear energy.   I look to see if their evidence and arguments have any merit, or if they are carefully chosen to ignore substantial evidence to the contrary.   

Not being an electrical engineer, but having had a few electrical engineering courses in undergrad, and being quite knowledgeable on nuclear power and many other forms of electrical power generation, I write on energy issues from time to time.   I also make speeches on this.    It is actually quite easy to look up public-domain data and publications to determine what is really happening in electrical energy production.   In fact, data on electricity has been collected and published in great detail over very many years.   

At one time, the electrical utility industry was one of the very largest, if not the largest, enterprises in the United States as measured by capital invested.  It requires an incredible amount of money to build the power plants, the transmission lines, the power substations, and the distribution lines to individual consumers.  Still more capital is required to mine the coal, extract the natural gas, and build the nuclear fleet.   We note here that no capital is required to purchase the wind, nor the solar, nor the rain that falls into reservoirs for hydroelectric dams.  Still more industries are supported by the electrical utility, including metals for steel, copper, and aluminum, cement and concrete, plus insulators and insulation.   The railroads devote a significant portion of their assets to moving coal to power plants, and making the return journey empty to the mines.   The natural gas industry also devotes a significant portion of their assets to piping natural gas to the power plants.  

It is important, therefore, for information on the electrical generation and distribution industry to be collected, analyzed, and made available.   One such recent report is cited below, that discusses the issue of integrating wind-generated power into the electrical grids in the United States.   This is from a most authoritative source, not some rubes out in the hills sipping their moonshine.  This is from NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  


"Review and Status of Wind Integration and Transmission in the United States: Key
Issues and Lessons Learned"  (Technical Report NREL/TP-5D00-61911, March 2015 ) 
see link

From the NREL report:

"The past 15 years of wind integration experience has demonstrated that flexibility is the key to successfully and efficiently integrating wind energy. Large penetrations of wind energy will necessitate steeper ramp requirements from dispatchable generators and demand-response sources, require lower minimum generation operating levels than are required today, and increase the amount of reserves necessary to maintain reliability levels. Thus, a “flexible” electric power system implies one in which the operator has some combination of agile generators that are physically able and equipped to respond quickly to load changes or an operational environment (scheduling interval, demand response, robustness of electric market, proper institutional structures) that allows quick adjustments to be made to load, or both. Understanding and providing this flexibility, especially at high levels of wind penetration, may be the most critical wind integration issue. Possessing physical flexibility without the institutional ability to access this flexibility may be insufficient. Conversely, possessing institutional flexibility without physical flexibility will also generally be insufficient. 

To address these operational issues, advanced wind turbine controls can aid the operation of the grid if proper incentives are provided. For example, wind turbines can now provide synthetic inertia, governor response, and regulation service."   (all bold portions mine, not in the original).  

There are four statements bolded above; each is discussed in turn below. 

1.  "flexibility is the key to successfully and efficiently integrating wind energy."  This is entirely in agreement with the assertion that a significant fraction of grid generation should not, and cannot, be nuclear baseload power.   There are some assertions that modern nuclear plants no longer must operate as baseload, but can ramp up and down as do some coal plants and natural gas plants.   Yet, as I have also written, such ramping capability in a nuclear power plant is costly, it adds capital cost and adds wear and tear on the plant that impacts safety and long life.  In short, it makes a bad situation worse.  

2.  "has some combination of agile generators that are physically able and equipped to respond quickly."   This is more of point 1 above, showing that uncompromising baseload nuclear plants are not the power system desired.  Agile is the opposite of a nuclear power plant, which run at 100 percent of capacity day in and day out.  Never mind that the grid demand is reduced at night, other power plants must reduce their load, but never the nuclear plant.   The agile plants are natural gas-fired.  

3.  "providing this flexibility, especially at high levels of wind penetration, may be the most critical wind integration issue."  This point is for high levels of wind penetration, such as those states in the US' Great Wind Corridor including Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota (see chart).  Note that this chart shows the annual averages.  On a daily, and instantaneous basis, the percentage of wind is much, much higher.  The California data shows only a bit more than 6 percent wind annually, but was recently 13 percent on an hourly basis for several hours.   It is instructive that the California grid did not crash, did not have a blackout, but ran just fine.  

California is about one-fourth the rate of the highest states, Iowa and Kansas

4.  "wind turbines can now provide synthetic inertia, governor response, and regulation service."   This point is crucial to rebutting the central claim of the ClimateEtc. post, that grids are vulnerable to high penetrations of wind energy because certain grid characteristics that provide stability with rotating generators are inadequate, or not present, when wind and solar input energy to the grid.  

Conclusion:

An authoritative body, NREL, assessed the current state and lessons learned from actual experience with wind energy integration into grids in the US over the recent 15 years.  The conclusions include non-responsive baseload plants are not desirable, instead, agile load-changing plants are required.  In addition, modern wind turbines can and do provide some of the grid-stabilizing attributes that will allow high levels of wind energy on a grid.  

These are entirely in accord with the conclusion of my earlier SLB article:  "I suspect that part of the California success is not having too much nuclear power on the grid, with its unyielding requirement to run at baseload (flat out at all times), whereas California has much more tolerant gas-fired power plants to slowly increase and decrease their output as the demand requires." 

I would also like to point out that electrical power is highly regulated, and any power plant additions (no matter what form) are carefully considered before approval.  Part of that consideration is the impact on grid stability and reliability.    For those who are anti-renewables, there is very little to worry about.  The grid will be fine.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved.  

Review of Activity - 2015

This is a place where a summary of the 2015 year's activity on SLB is shown.  

Total new articles - 38
Views of new articles - 3,390
Total views in 2015 - 35,700
Total blog views from inception to date (2008 - 2015) - 142,000
Total countries visited SLB to date - 147
Total articles published to date - 312

Views of 30-article Truth About Nuclear Power series - 11,051 views (in 2015 alone)
Total views to date for TANP series:  21,250

Most popular articles published in 2015 (most to least)
Thorium Nuclear Reactor Not the World Savior
The View from a Process Engineer
US In a Cooling trend, Winters Much Colder
Mars Colony -  Bad Idea
Australia Nuclear Prospects - Q13-17

My own views of which SLB articles from 2015 are the most important, due to their topic or significance that may, and very likely will, impact society:

1.  Coal Exhaustion Looms - Renewable Energy to the Rescue  (see link)
2.  Energy Supply in Post-Coal America  (see link)
3.  US In a Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder  (see link)

"Coal Exhaustion Looms" describes the world running out of coal as fuel supply within 50 or 60 years, if present consumption continues.  The economic result is rather large, since approximately 45 to 50 percent of the world's electricity is provided by coal-burning power plants.  This relates to economically, proven recoverable reserves of fuel-grade coal worldwide.  There are approxmately 500 billion tons remaining, at a consumption of a bit more than 9 billion tons per year.  

Closely related to that, "Energy Supply in Post-Coal America" describes the even worse situation for domestic coal in the US, which will be exhausted in only 20 years (by 2035) at present consumption rates.   The article goes on to describe the apparent (or perhaps coincidental) marginalizing of the coal exhaustion problem and official promotion of the non-existent Global Warming from Fossil Fuels problem.   20 years is not very long in utility planning terms to replace almost 40 percent of the US grid's combined energy supply.  Natural gas-fired power plants, and wind turbine energy will be the technologies to supply the power.  

"US In a Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder" is important because it shows the temperature trend from data from pristine locations that needs zero adjustments, unlike the official temperature data from NOAA.   The winters are cooling much faster than the annual average, at the rate of minus 10.9 degrees C per century.   Policy makers must be made aware of the cooling trend and make appropriate preparations for running the country successfully should this trend of only 10 years be shown to continue.  In short, stop the false-alarmism on Global Warming and began the serious business of life in a much colder, harsher world with far less agricultural output.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Science in the Courts - A Communication Problem

Subtitle: Also a Matter of What is Truth

Update 1: Third and final part of the article is published below. -- end update

A most interesting blog article appeared a few weeks ago at WUWT (see link), written by Dr. Tim Ball and titled "The Recent Senate Climate Hearing Failed Because It Continues To Miss The Point."  

The article was interesting for a few reasons, among them are 1) it is flat wrong on the position that courts will not hear scientific matter, and 2) it raises the issue of failure in communications between elected officials and the learned specialists (in this case, scientists).  

Both of these issues interest me, and with my background as both an attorney-at-law and a chemical engineer, these points deserve some discussion.   This SLB article is the start of that discussion, it may be added to from time to time.  The issues are deep, complex, and at times fairly fuzzy - that is, no sharp lines exist to define what is right or wrong, what is legal and not.   Each issue is discussed at some length, and a better strategy is offered for improving communication of complex issues. 

The climate realist world is fairly small (climate skeptic is another term for climate realist), and I don't pretend to know all the participants; I am certain they don't all know me.   But, for various reasons, I have managed to participate a bit, and meet a few, of the participants.  This is not a name-dropping exercise, though.   As to Dr. Tim Ball, I have not met the man but I have heard and seen him speak on climate matters, in summer of 2014 at a gathering of climate realists in the US.  

The two issues mentioned above are discussed next, in turn. 

Courts and Science

Dr. Ball states, “Courts will not listen to or judge scientific disputes.”   And a bit later, “. . . courts won’t consider scientific disputes.”   Some context on his statements is in order.  It appears that Dr. Ball is referring to his ". . . participat(ion) in appeals to the US Supreme Court over actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."  (all quoted matter from the 12/19/2015 WUWT article linked above).  Dr. Ball also references three defamation lawsuits where science was not allowed as an issue, to the best of my knowledge.  

It is not true that courts will not consider scientific disputes; stated more affirmatively: courts will address scientific disputes at some times.  In the US, the court system is divided along several lines, one such line is state courts, and federal courts.  Other divisions also exist, such as criminal versus civil courts, and lower courts versus appellate courts.   In general, the lower courts (both criminal and civil) address matters of fact, and matters of law.  To non-lawyers, those statements seem clear but likely are not fully appreciated as to their meanings.   More on that later.   In the appellate courts, matters of fact are heard on very rare occasions, while matters of law are the primary issue.  

A matter of fact is one in which some item of evidence is presented to a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) for the jury to decide if the fact, as presented, is true or not.  There may be some doubt as to the truth of the matter, which is familiar in the standard of proof that is required to convict an accused person in a criminal matter: he must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.   It should be noted that scientific disputes occur both in criminal and civil cases.  In criminal cases, typical science disputes may occur over things such as ballistics for bullets, toxicology for cause of death, and others.  In civil cases, science disputes may arise over things such as measurement of air or water pollutants, or the causes of a consumer product that malfunctioned and led to personal injury or death.  

A matter of law is different from a matter of fact; a matter of law is concerned with whether or not an issue is something that a court will decide, and if it can decide, what law is to be applied to it.  Typical examples are to determine if a matter concerns the law of contract, or tort, or property, criminal law, Constitutional law, procedural law, evidence law, consumer rights, elder law, family law, and a host of others.  

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has legions of attorneys that both defend, and prosecute, lawsuits based on science disputes, such as the toxicity of various chemicals on humans, plants, and animals.  One need only perform an internet search on a term such as "lawsuit and EPA" to find literally millions of sites that meet those two criteria. (a recent search returned 6.7 million hits).    Or, one can visit the EPA's own website http://cfpub.epa.gov/enforcement/cases/ to see literally hundreds of lawsuits  (click on the link to visit that page).   Note, not all the lawsuits involve science, as some involve procedural matters.    

The US EPA is not alone, as state environmental agencies and local agencies also employ armies of attorneys for similar purposes: prosecuting and defending against lawsuits.  As the head of a local Southern California environmental agency said to me in one of our meetings, "We cannot win.  Some parties sue us because we are doing too much, while others sue us because we are not doing enough."  

Courts also have standards for how to handle scientific testimony, or offered evidence of scientific matters.  While there are hundreds of references on this, one that has a good discussion is from the 160-page Roscoe Pound Foundation 1997 report, "www.poundinstitute.org/sites/default/files/docs/1997ForumReport.pdf."   see link.  Federal courts are required to use the Daubert standard, while state courts may use something similar.   Essentially, the evidence that is offered must be "good science" and not "junk science."   How to determine what is "good" and what is "junk" is the purpose of the Daubert standard.  

The Daubert standard has 5 parts:  

(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; 
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; 
(3) its known or potential error rate; 
(4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and 
(5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

A court requires each of the Daubert 5 parts to be presented and argued before the judge, and accepted, before the evidence is allowed to be presented to a jury.   

State courts, though, are free to use different standards.   Some use the Frye standard, while others use the Daubert standard.  The Frye standard requires the court to determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was obtained was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs. 

A final word about science being heard in the courts: appellate courts, as mentioned above, generally do not decide issues of fact.  They typically decide issues of law.  However, on some occasions, an appellate court uses a standard of review known as de novo, and will consider the issues of fact.   At the US Supreme Court, as Dr. Ball mentioned in his article, issues of fact are very rare.  

The fluid nature of science is also a very great concern in a court, as judges and most attorneys know quite well that scientists frequently and sometimes loudly announce that what was formerly considered "settled science" has been refuted or overturned or substantially changed by new findings.  This is especially true in what is generously referred to as health science, where different foods or liquids are found to be bad for humans in one study, then found to be beneficial in later studies.  Interested readers are encouraged to look into the health effects (or harm) from coffee, wine, chocolates, dairy products, eggs, and sugar, to name but a few.  

In the climate science field, it is also a known fact that climate scientists make bold pronouncements from time to time, then change that completely only a few years later.  One specific example of this is the continued, and often-repeated, adjustments to the average global temperature anomaly, such that the past gets colder with each new version, and the warming trend gets greater and greater.   

One of the most laughable of all climate science claims is that "the science is settled."    I had a little fun with that a few years back on SLB, see link to "Climate Science is Not Settled," with a compilation of "settled science" and my commentary on each.  I hope the reader enjoys those.  

This leads to another complaint Dr. Ball makes, “The basic argument is that it is “your paper” against “their paper” and they (the courts) are not qualified to judge.”    It is quite true that a court case boils down, many times, to one expert's testimony against the testimony of the other side's expert.  However, and here is where Dr. Ball is quite wrong, it is not the judge who makes the decision to not hear the case where there are battling experts.  This is an argument that an attorney makes when counseling his client about the prospects of success or failure in litigation.  The attorney knows that a trial will come down to the jury, or in some cases a judge, hearing two expert witnesses testify where one says that his conclusion, “their paper,” is correct, whereas the other expert says that his conclusion, “your paper,” is correct.   A jury or judge is typically not trained or experienced in the science and cannot make sense out of either expert’s argument.   However, as noted above, trials do occur and expert witnesses do testify before juries and judges

Communication Failure Between Elected Officials and Learned Specialists

Dr. Ball writes, “The same problems confront any discussion in a formal hearing about climate science. Politicians are no better equipped or qualified to determine a science confrontation than the Courts.”  

This is partially true.  As described above, the courts routinely hear matters in which science plays a significant role.   However, it is true that most politicians have a poor understanding of science.   Politicians are generally not scientists nor engineers, as many are attorneys with non-science and non-technical backgrounds.   These elected officials generally rely on staffs of experts, or paid consultants, to provide information and summarize arguments for and against an issue.   However, elected officials also hold hearings, usually public hearings, so that interested parties (sometimes known as "stakeholders") can present their views.  

As shown above, science has conflicting claims in many areas, which are well-known to elected officials.  It is difficult for the elected officials to know which claims to believe, which scientists to believe, and how far to believe them if at all.   

Temperature record of Abilene, Texas from 1886 showing very cold winters 1977-78-79

A short digression for some examples of climate science having poor credibility: Forty years ago, in the late 1970s, the public was bombarded with stories of global cooling.  The winters of 1977, 1978, and 1979 were unusually cold and harsh (where the winter is defined as December of the previous year, and January and February of the year shown by the date; that is, Winter of 1977 includes December of '76 through February of '77).   See adjacent graph for the temperature range, by year, for Abilene, Texas.   Note the three small dips at the lower portion of the graph and just above the 1980 mark on the X axis.  These three dips reflect the very cold winters.  Note also that at no other time in the entire record of more than 100 years, did three winters occur with such severity and in succession.  Those three winters were unique in the entire record.     Note also that this was not limited to Abilene; many other areas across the US were similarly impacted.  Interested readers can read more at this link.   (The article is titled: "Illinois Third Consecutive Severe Winter: 1978-1979,"  and has graphic descriptions with measured data on the severity of the three subject winters.) 

Yet, today, the global cooling stories from 40 years ago are pushed aside, and the new alarm is over global warming.   In addition, the climate alarmism is published every few years by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, yet their conclusions change each year.   Also, the global average temperature anomaly, which climate scientists produce from time to time, has frequent changes that almost always produce a warming trend that becomes greater each time the scientists change it.   Next, the climate scientists have a great many computer models of the global average temperature anomaly, but their models not only do not agree with each other, but do not match the measured temperatures either.  The lack of agreement between the models and measurements has been given a popular name, "The Pause," due to the cessation of increase in measured temperatures.   Finally, and perhaps most ominously, almost every prediction made by the climate scientists has failed to occur: Arctic ice disappearing, continued warming (as just mentioned), more hurricanes or tropical cyclones, a hot spot in the atmosphere, accelerated rise in sea levels, disappearance of snow, droughts and floods of unprecedented length and severity, and many more.   None of these predictions came to pass.  

Therefore, if one is an elected official and climate scientists are summoned to a public hearing to convey their scientific findings, what is one to believe?   How can a climate scientist possibly communicate effectively and persuade the elected official that any scientific finding or conclusion is true?   It matters not, or very little, which side the scientist is on, the global warming alarmism side, or the skeptic side that holds that any warming that may be occurring is not only negligible but is due to man-made, artificial adjustments to the temperature record.  The elected official does not know who to believe, because the track record, the credibility, of climate scientists is indeed dismal.  

The Battle Between the Papers

Next, Dr. Ball states, “They (skeptics) must show how “Their paper” (warmists’) was deliberately falsified in terms the public can understand. The recent US Senate hearings failed because the “Deniers” (skeptics) explained the scientific problems with the science of “Their Paper” (the warmists' paper).  The politicians and public didn’t understand the difference. Even if they entertained the idea that “Their Paper” was wrong they were confronted with the question of whether the errors were from incompetence or corruption, something the presenters of “Your Paper” (skeptics)  were not able or willing to answer.”

The battle between competing experts, or in this case, climate scientists who testify at a Senate hearing, very likely does result in utter confusion by those who listen to the experts.  Dr. Ball raises the interesting question of Why are the Warmists wrong?  He suggests that incompetence or corruption may be the culprits, yet the skeptic scientists were not able or willing to make those charges.   Such charges are indeed serious, as incompetence at one's profession, if false, is grounds for a slander or libel suit in defamation.   A charge of corruption, perhaps deliberately falsifying data to obtain an agenda-driven conclusion, is also very serious.  Such a charge, if true, can carry criminal penalties for fraud, and civil penalties for damages.  

Part of the problem is, of course, that the data - the basic, original data - that underlies much of the controversy is either missing, or hidden from view by claims of contractual obligations, confidentiality, or exemptions of some form from Freedom Of Information laws.   It is indeed difficult to make a valid charge of corruption when one cannot know what actual changes were made to the data.  

Yet, there are effective ways to show politicians, and other interested but non-technical observers, not only that the Warmists' papers (and positions) are wrong, but why.  That subject is addressed in the next section. 


Communicating Complex Issues

Effectively communicating a complex issue is a very common, even ubiquitous problem in the legal setting and in many non-legal settings.  How does one effectively communicate a complex issue, and persuade or convince a person or group (perhaps senators at a hearing, a patient with a serious medical problem, or a jury deciding a trial's outcome, or even a room full of conference attendees) that a particular position is correct, and the other side is wrong?   

First, examined below is what attorneys do in trials to win their case when a jury of ordinary people will decide the outcome.  Second, how experts are chosen and directed by the attorneys.  Yes, the word is directed, just as a movie director directs the actors in a film.  Third, what scientists can do to improve their communication and persuasive skills.   The third part is further anayzed by the concepts of Who, How, and What.  

Can Scientists Learn Anything from Trial Attorneys?

If one were to judge from the harsh treatment afforded those intrepid attorneys who venture into blog discussions on climate change, no one is listening to an attorney.  Attorneys are (almost always) vilified, scorned, and ridiculed as know-nothings or worse.   However, recognizing that at least some attorneys are good fellows (and ladies) who are knowledgeable, bright, experienced, and act ethically while still advocating strongly for their client, there are some good lessons to be learned from attorneys on effective communication of complex issues. 

The first lesson from the attorneys is that juries, as intelligent people but untrained in a technical or complex scientific matter, normally make their decisions on factors other than the complex "stuff."  They tend to decide on things like who was more believable, who was nicer, who was more attractive, and who seemed more trustworthy.   As stated by law Professor Joseph Sanders, 

"As for juries, we have indications that they have trouble with complex cases, and with scientific evidence, and we have reason to believe that better-educated juries do better in these areas. We have indications that juries approach expertise with skepticism. We have indications that juries appraise expert testimony not by grappling with technical issues, but by counting extraneous factors like qualifications, the number of arguments (rather than quality), and personal attractiveness. We understand that jurors give more credence to
messages framed in simple language, less to those framed in complex language, and they pay close attention to demeanor. "

Therefore, winning arguments will include the complex issues, no doubt, but those arguments will also be delivered in a manner designed to maximize the impact on the jury.   The language used, the message, will have an easy-to-understand overview.  

To make a point memorable, or even to summarize the case, attorneys sometimes invent a short phrase to repeat to the jury, something memorable, perhaps a rhyming couplet.  An example follows from the famous OJ Simpson murder trial, pertaining to the gloves.  The attorney said, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”   That is short, and it rhymes.  This refers to the glove that the murderer supposedly wore, and if it did not fit OJ Simpson, the accused, then the jury was to acquit, find him not guilty.    

Another famous trial had a different rhyming couplet that was stated to the jury multiple times:  “If the lion gets away, Kerr-McGee has to pay.”  This was from the case of plutonium radiation poisoning in the Karen Silkwood case.   The attorney was trying to emphasize the legal point of strict liability, for ultra-hazardous materials such as the plutonium at issue in the case.  In strict liability, no matter what happens that allows the harm to occur, the defendant must pay.   Here, “the lion” refers to an ancient case in which a defendant owned a lion that escaped its cage, then attacked and injured the plaintiff.   Plutonium in the Silkwood case was an analogy of the lion.   The attorneys alleged that improper safeguards by Kerr-McGee allowed plutonium to escape and contaminate Ms. Silkwood.    

A critic might say, this creating a simple rhyme is grandstanding.  This has no place in a serious discussion or debate about something as vital to human survival as global warming.   And perhaps the critic is correct.  Or, perhaps what is needed is a memorable phrase that catches the public's attention and draws more scrutiny of the underlying arguments, both for and against the conclusion.   Perhaps the warmists can chant, "We are all going to die, from CO2 in the sky."  Where CO2 is spelled out C-O-2.   Or another version, "Too much Carbon in the Sky, We are all going to die."    The variations are endless, and can be a bit amusing. 

In addition to creating a catch-phrase, the attorney must select a good expert witness and develop the expert's testimony.  

Choosing Experts and Directing Them 

Ideally, an expert witness has characteristics that the jury finds him (or her) believable, and likeable.   Important characteristics are the expert's appearance such as clothing and shoes, speaking voice, mannerisms, demeanor, authoritative (education, degrees, society memberships, publications, honors, experience, whether a teacher or professor, and how often called to testify as an expert).   The ideal expert is especially cool when cross-examined, when challenged, when shown to be wrong.
  
Attorneys choose their experts wisely.  They go over and over the testimony, with special attention to word choices, voice inflection, mannerisms, and how to remain cool under duress.  They will rehearse the use of visual and audio aids, posters, charts, exhibits, physical models, and other ways to clearly make a point.    Some types of sentences are difficult to understand, while others are much easier.   The vocabulary may be unfamiliar to the jury, so some time must be allocated to explaining what the various terms mean.  

The attorney not only presents his own side through having the expert testify as answers to various questions, but he will also negate, or undermine, the other side's evidence.   It is helpful to show where the other side is wrong, or to show that there is uncertainty, even substantial doubt or inaccuracy. 

The climate scientists can do similar things to improve their communication. 

Scientists As Communicators and Persuaders  

It is certainly true that not all scientists who want to communicate in hearings, and persuade the panel, are tall, tanned, athletic, good-looking, have a full head of neatly groomed hair, and a pleasant but resonant voice.   Or, if a female, the feminine equivalent.   Yet, there are things that can be done, and must be done to improve communication.  The scientist as testifying expert can wear nice but not gaudy clothes, new and shined shoes, and have hair trimmed neatly.   It is perhaps not proper, but juries notice things like fingernails, so those too must be trimmed and clean.   

A communication specialist, or an experienced trial attorney, can be engaged to listen to the scientist's presentation and offer improvements.   There is an art to public speaking, to making a presentation that is understandable, even to the choice of graphic design and colors.   (SLB has a few instances where poor visual aids were used in public presentations by various scientists.  One word of advice:  yellow in a graph is not a good idea.)    

The speaking voice almost always can be improved with coaching and practice, to one that is easy on the ears, smooth and not harsh or distracting.   It can be humbling for a speaker to go through such coaching and criticism.    Eliminating annoying habits takes more coaching and time, but a good message effectively delivered can be destroyed by a momentary lapse of good etiquette.   One can learn and practice the conventional parts of speech that make for good listening, such as introductions, transitions, and concluding phrases.  

The scientist likely already has an impressive resumé with academic degrees and a publication list, perhaps even a position as a professor.   There may already be society memberships, and perhaps honors from that or other societies.   Such things impress a jury, or a panel of senators.  

Now, with the Who and How having been somewhat discussed, the What of the presentation is given.  

What, exactly, can a climate scientist discuss to make his or her point effectively and memorably?   How is one to win, when both experts are equally believable, calm, cool, collected, well-dressed and groomed, authoritative, well-spoken, and dignified?   

One way is to undermine the other side by showing that if the other side is right, certain outcomes that should be true are actually not true.    Conversely, the scientist can bolster his side by showing that if he is right, certain outcomes that should be true actually are true.   Examples of warmist claims that have not occurred, as discussed earlier, include Arctic ice disappearing, continued warming, more hurricanes or tropical cyclones, a hot spot in the atmosphere, accelerated rise in sea levels, disappearance of snow, droughts and floods of unprecedented length and severity, and many more.  

The skeptics have evidence that is persuasive, such as a general pause or cooling of the atmosphere while the sunspots are in a very weak cycle, fresh-water lakes having more persistent ice, and perhaps the most persuasive argument of all, the adjacent cities problem.   One of the central pillars of science is that science is consistent, it is not arbitrary.  What works in one location also works in all others.   In my speeches on this, I use the example of gravity is very consistent around the world.  Engineers depend on this to build our machines and infrastructure.  Yet, the world of climate science has the same CO2 concentration above adjacent cities, but one city warms while the other does not.  Or, one city cools while the other does not.   This very fact is essentially proof-positive that CO2 in the atmosphere can not be causing a global warming.  

There is also the very persuasive, but complicated, concept of CO2 and warming as a violation of process control principles.   That one takes a fair amount of explaining, as I have done earlier on SLB.  (see link to "Chemical Engineer Takes On Global Warming," which is in the top two most viewed articles on SLB.)

A persuasive argument can also undermine the other side by showing the methodology is flawed.  In climate science's atmospheric temperature data, there is over-inclusion of temperature data from cities and other UHI influences, making adjustments to data, making up data, splicing data, adding in new records of shorter length, and many more.   There also is the model variable problem, or omitted variables.   Models do not account for clouds as albedo increases, nor for sunspots and cloud relationships, nor for windy versus calm days, nor for many other variables.  

Perhaps the most persuasive argument for the skeptic side, though, is one that was made here recently on SLB.   The problem with the warmists' approach and conclusion is the inclusion in their temperature data of any location that has a human influence, such as data from cities.   The fact is, and quoting from the SLB article from November 2015, "even if all the electricity (and other energy) is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data."    The full quote:

". . .cities will have energy consumption and heat rejection issues no matter what type of system produces that energy.  Considering for the moment electricity use, even if a city were all-electric for heating, cooking, and transportation, and even if that electricity were produced by zero-carbon-dioxide power plants (see below), the UHI would exist.  In essence, a building has no idea what produced the electricity that heats the building, runs the lights and elevators, and heats the hot water.  An electric car, or bus, or delivery truck, or train, also has no idea what produced the electricity that each of those consumes.   Therefore, even if all the electricity is from a zero-carbon-dioxide source, the cities would still have UHI and would corrupt the climate scientists' data.   Such zero-carbon-dioxide sources include, but are not limited to, hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, wave, tidal, ocean current, ocean temperature-difference, water pressure recapture, river mouth osmosis, and river current.   There are also carbon-neutral sources: landfill methane, cattle operation methane, Municipal solid waste (MSW), human waste sludge, plant-based ethanol, and other bio-fuels.  


It is entirely wrong for climate scientists to include any data that is corrupted by UHI."   see link

Therefore, and again as argued here on SLB, it is critical to use long-term temperature records for trends only from pristine locations, from very low-population areas.   see link

When one considers, as Dr. Ball did, whether to make a charge of deliberately falsifying the "paper," or evidence of warming, or make a charge of incompetence, or even corruption, it is likely only necessary to show that the wrong data was used to establish a warming trend.   It is wrong to use data from populated areas, as those areas would have warmed, and will continue to warm, even if all the power on the planet was from hydroelectric dams.    In fact, it could be shown, if we had the temperature records, that cities were warmer than farms even 200 or 500 years ago.  

J. Goodridge. 

To close, once again the Goodridge chart is shown, where almost 100 years of temperature trends are classified by population in a county.  Warming was absent in the counties with very low populations, yet a pronounced warming trend exists for counties with large populations.   As shown above, CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be that smart, to recognize that a city is below it and zap the city with its heat-increasing rays.  But, to know when a farming area is below and to holster its heat-zapping gun. 

In conclusion, scientists who want to communicate complex issues to non-scientist audiences could benefit from collaboration with trial attorneys.   While a panel of elected officials, perhaps Senators, is not the same as a panel of jurors, and a Senate hearing is much different in rules and duration from a jury trial, there are similar things that can be done to improve communication.   


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved

Most Important Event of 2015

Subtitle: US Temperatures in Pristine Areas Show Massive Cooling

As the year 2016 has arrived and 2015 is gone, once again I take keyboard under fingers and review what, to me, were the important events of the year just past.  As I wrote at this time a year ago, (see link)  many other writers have already discussed what they view as the most important event or events of 2015.  This is a very common thing, reviewing the old year as the new year arrives.    The big event of 2014, in my opinion, was the weak peak of the solar cycle 24.  The implications for a much colder future are indeed grim.  

This article addresses briefly a half-dozen events (more or less) that made the news in 2015, in no particular order, then discusses the most important event of the year: Pristine areas in the US show a pronounced cooling - not a warming - over the past decade (see graph at right).  

Oil Price Collapse - this was on last year's review also; late in 2015 the price dropped to $35 per barrel, and OPEC could not agree on a production ceiling in 2015; unregulated production will create further glut of oil and price declines.   Energy-related industries will see reduced profits, and declines in employment, the further effects will see declines in real estate prices.  However, increased consumer spending and reduced operating costs for many industries that consume oil products will boost the economy.  

El Niño Begins - and skews the surface temperature record upward; the beginning of a strong El Niño event, perhaps the strongest such event on record, (Noting that "on record" is highly subjective, as it usually refers to modern scientists and their modern instruments that measure things like ocean surface temperatures in many places around the globe.  However, it is certainly true that local fishermen have longer records of the El Niño events, particularly along the fishing waters offshore western South America.)  Previous El Niño events produced a sudden increase, or step-change, in surface temperature records.  Scientists have a difficult (impossible?) time explaining how that is consistent with their insistence that carbon dioxide, CO2, is slowly but inexorably warming the planet.   The good news from an El Niño is the rain and snow that falls in the parched desert Southwest in North America.  Drought conditions will end.   The bad news is the severe flooding and storms, including tornadoes in other parts of the US.  World-wide, a big El Niño also creates droughts and crop failures, with the accompanying misery.  

Look for some, especially the false-alarmists, to claim that "the pause" is over now that El Niño is here and has increased the surface temperatures.    (Note, "false-alarmists" is my term of choice for describing those who fervently insist that global warming is man-made, is due to fossil-fuel burning, and will create catastrophes in the very near future.  The only "man-made" aspect of global warming is the man-adjusted data that the false-alarmists use to prove their point.)  

Coal Power Plants to Shut Down in US - coal-fired power plants in the US are now subject to the MATS rule from the US EPA, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.  The legal wrangling, while not finished, is sufficiently complete so that the timeframe has arrived at which the coal-fired plants must either comply, or shut down.   The EPA, though, has new proposed rules that are being challenged in court, this time to limit the CO2 produced from coal-burning power plants.   see link to my recent post on "Energy Supply in Post-Coal America."  The US is running out of domestic coal anyway, so it might as well begin the economic and development aspects of renewable energy with appropriate storage.  

Nuclear Plants Continue to Shut Down, and New Construction Woes - a favorite and frequent topic on SLB, nuclear power plants in the US continue the parade of shut-downs, while the feeble efforts at building new reactors continue to see set back upon set back, both in cost increases and schedules running longer and longer.   Despite all the clams of the nuclear advocates, some of whom clearly have no idea what they are talking about, nuclear power via the current best available technology, Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), is too costly and takes too long to build to be economic in the US.  Overseas, where labor rates are far less, concerns over safety are far less, and there is great insecurity of alternate fuels such as coal and natural gas, nuclear plants are still being planned and built.  Woe to them, though, when the plants begin spewing forth the deadly radioactivity.  Woe to all of us who are in the downwind path of such deadly radiation.  

California Grid Is Fine at 31 Percent Wind, Solar - see link   Renewable energy supplies into a grid are not supposed to exceed 30 percent, however it is clear from the recent California experience that 30 percent is not a problem at all.  Grids that have substantial amounts of nuclear power, inflexible and stubbornly refusing to reduce output, will have the greatest problems.  California, though, now has only two nuclear reactors operating as two more reactors shut down a few years ago due to a completely botched steam generator replacement project (see link).   California's grid now must deal with nuclear baseload power at only 2,100 MWe, or just under 10 percent of the load at the lowest point each night.  During the peak loads in the summer of 50,000 MW, nuclear now is less than 5 percent of the load.  Economic, flexible gas-fired plants on the California grid make the integration of wind and solar, with their intermittent characteristics, much easier than on a grid that is supplied primarily by coal and nuclear.  

Off-shore Wind Turbines Under Construction - see link  construction began on the US' first off-shore wind turbine installation with 5 turbines, off the coast of Rhode Island.  Startup is expected in late 2016.  The project has 5 wind turbines of 6 MW each, for 30 MW maximum output.  It is a good first step, with many hundreds of similar, or even larger, turbines to follow.  Advantages of building off-shore include much stronger wind, more consistent wind, and no angry neighbors complaining about noise. 

On-shore Wind Turbines Height Increased - see link concrete towers instead of steel allows much higher wind turbines, making wind energy more economic and producing much more energy over a wider area.   Taller is better in the wind energy world, as the wind at greater heights is stronger, and more consistent. 

The most important event of 2015:

US Temperatures in Pristine Areas Show Great Cooling - see link  to the SLB article "US In A Cooling Trend - Winters Much Colder;"  2015 marked ten years of data collection from the USCRN, United States Climate Reference Network, of temperature measuring stations located in pristine areas of the US where man-made influences are zero, or very close to zero.  These stations require no adjustments for any of the usual reasons that allow the false-alarmists to manipulate the data and create a warming trend where none exists.  The results from the first 10 years of data show zero warming.  The US trend is minus 2.68 degrees C per century.    Only in the drought-stricken regions of the far West is there a slight warming trend.  However, all the winter seasons show a very rapid cooling.  The winter season cooling is at a rate of minus 10.9 degrees C per century.   

In the upcoming weeks, the data for all of 2015 will be available so the annual trend can be extended to 11 years.   By March, another winter can be added to the winter trend.   The El Niño will likely create a slightly warmer winter across the northern and eastern tier, but that will be but a small blip in the long-term.   It's very tough to show a warming without the influence of artificial structures, asphalt parking lots, air conditioner exhausts, and all the other issues that created a warming trend.   The false-alarmists no longer have a credible story on man-made global warming due to fossil fuel use.  

Indeed, the great concern for all of man-kind should be what to do about the entire Earth running out of coal, country by country, in 10 years, 20 years, and ultimately by 50 years from now.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 all rights reserved