BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ENDANGERMENT

AND

CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES

UNDER SECTION 202(a) OFTHE CLEAN AIR ACT

74 FED. REG. 66496 (DEC. 15, 2009)

February 16, 2010

Office of the Administrator, EPA

EPA Associate General Counsel, Air and Radiation

Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change Division

EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs

1200 Pennsylvania Ave

Washington, D.C. 20004

Email: ghgendangerment@epa.gov

Fax: 202.343.2202

Petitioner

Arthur G. Randol III, Ph.D.
I hereby request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”

or “Agency”) reconsider its Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act published at 74

Federal Register (FR) 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). My petition is based primarily on

the release of email and other information from the University of East Anglia

(“UEA”) Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) in November 2009. The CRU

information undermines the “lines of evidence” on which the Endangerment

Finding rests, particularly the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (“IPCC”) and the United States Global Change Research

Program (“USGCRP”). This petition addresses the issues related to the third line of

evidence:

“The attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic activities is

based on multiple lines of evidence. ... The third line of evidence arises

from the use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely

patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms

(both natural and anthropogenic).”

74 FR 66,518.

Given the seriousness of the flaws that the CRU material reveals in the

development of the IPCC reports (and the USGCRP), and given EPA’s extensive

reliance on those reports, the Agency has no legal option but to reexamine the

Endangerment Finding in light of this new information. Indeed, the analytical

process in which EPA engaged in reaching its Endangerment Finding is so tainted

by the flaws and conflicts now revealed in the IPCC (and the USGCRP) reports

that the Agency must take the unusual step of convening full evidentiary hearings

in order to provide an open and fair reconsideration process.
LIST OF SCIENTISTS AND THEIR UNIPCC/USGCRP ROLES

INVOLVED IN THE CRU EMAIL EXCHANGES

Dr. Phil Jones - Professor, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

IPCC: Coordinating lead author of Chapter 3 of Working Group I Report, 2007

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Thomas Karl - Director, National Climatic Data Center, NOAA.

IPCC: Review editor of Chapter 3 of Working Group I Report, 2007 IPCC Fourth

Assessment Report. Coordinating lead author of Chapter 2 of Working Group I

Report, 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report.

USGCRP: Major Involvement in SAP 1.1(2006) and Global Climate Change

Impacts in the U.S.(2009)

Dr. Michael Mann - Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State

University.

IPCC 2001 (TAR): Lead author of Chapter 2; Contributing author of Chapter 7;

Contributing author of Chapter 8 of Working Group I Report.

Dr. Benjamin Santer - Research Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis

and Intercomparison at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

IPCC 1995(SAR): Lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report.

USGCRP: Major Involvement in SAP 1.1(2006) “Temperature Trends in the

Lower Atmosphere”, and Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.(2009)

Dr. Susan Solomon - Senior Scientist, Chemical Sciences Division (CSD) Earth

System Research Laboratory (ESRL), NOAA.

IPCC 2007 (AR4): Co-Chair, IPCC Working Group I Report, Contributing author

of Chapter 4;

IPCC 2001 (TAR): Lead author of Chapter 6 of Working Group I Report

Dr. Kevin Trenberth - Senior Scientist, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the

National Center for Atmospheric Research.

IPCC 2007 (AR4): Contributing author of Chapter 1; Coordinating lead author of

Chapter 3; Contributing author of Chapter 7 of Working Group I Report, 2007

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

IPCC 2001 (TAR): Contributing author of Chapter 8 of Working Group I Report

Dr. Thomas Wigley - senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics

Division, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
IPCC 2007 (4AR): Contributing author of Chapter 10 of Working Group I Report.

IPCC 2001 (TAR): Contributing author of Chapter 4; Contributing

author of Chapter 9; Contributing author of Chapter 12 of Working Group I Report

USGCRP: Major Involvement in SAP 1.1(2006) “Temperature Trends in the

Lower Atmosphere”

THE CRU MATERIAL CALLS INTO QUESTION EPA’S NEAR TOTAL

RELIANCE ON WHAT IT TERMS THE “ASSESSMENT LITERATURE,”

AND PARTICULARLY THE WORK OF THE IPCC

A. Despite the Section 202(a) Requirement that the Administrator Exercise

Her Own Expert Judgment, the Administrator Did Not Independently Judge

the Science and Instead Relied Primarily on Summary Scientific Reports

Produced by Third Parties

1. Section 202(a) Requires the Administrator to Exercise Independent

Judgment

Section 202(a) is crystal clear that the EPA Administrator is obligated to exercise

her

own judgment in deciding whether or not to make an Endangerment Finding.

According to

section 202(a), “[t]he Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to

time revise) in accordance with provisions of this section, standards applicable to

the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle

engines, which may in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which

may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

2. The Administrator Relied Primarily on the “Assessment Literature”

in Making Her Endangerment Finding

Despite being obligated to exercise her own judgment as to whether anthropogenic

GHG emissions pose a danger to public health or welfare, the Administrator did

not base her Endangerment Finding on her own review of primary scientific

literature and data or on modeling performed by her staff using Information

Quality Act (IQA) compliant models. Instead, as she readily conceded, she relied

almost exclusively on reports produced by others summarizing their views of

climate change science and the results of “black box” models, reports and analysis

that she refers to as the “assessment literature.” As the Endangerment Finding

stated, “...the Administrator is relying on the major assessments of the USGCRP,

the IPCC, and the NRC as the primary scientific and technical basis of her
endangerment decision.” The Administrator’s statement of her primary reliance on

these reports is repeated throughout the Endangerment Finding, the Technical

Support Document (“TSD”) and the Response to Public Comments document. For

instance, the TSD stated that it “relies most heavily” on this “assessment

literature.”

a. IQA Obligations Ignored

The Administrator also relied on the “assessment literature” to satisfy her

obligations under the IQA as to the quality and transparency of information she

relied on in the Endangerment Finding. She made clear, however, that she did not

make her own expert determination as to the quality and transparency of the

information summarized in the “assessment literature.” Instead, she reviewed the

procedures used by the entities that prepared the “assessment literature” to confirm

that those entities, in her view, had adequately taken steps to ensure information

quality and transparency. She stated that “[o]ur approach is consistent with these

[EPA’s IQA] guidelines because we thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the author

selection, report preparation, expert review, public review, information quality, and

approval procedures of IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, and NRC to ensure the information

adhered “to a basic standard of quality, including objectivity, utility and integrity.”

B. EPA relies upon “modeling” by others as a major line of evidence yet the

CRU email reveal serious questions about the validity of the IPCC models and

the modelers

EPA at 74 FR 66,519:

Future warming over the course of the 21st century, even under scenarios of

low emissions growth, is very likely to be greater than observed warming

over the past century. According to climate model simulations summarized

by the IPCC, through about 2030, the global warming rate is affected little

by the choice of different future emission scenarios.

1. Questions about IPCC model results:

Tom Wigley (the developer of the M.A.G.I.C.C. model used by EPA) email to

Michael Mann (Oct 14, 2009):

Mike[Mann],

The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with
PCM look as though they match observations -- but the match is a fluke.

PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity --

compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a

number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors

and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare

with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive

matches are to sensitivity and forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

Tom[Wigley].

Kevin Trenberth email to Tom Wigley, Tom Karl, Phil Jones, Michael Mann,

Gavin Schmidt (Oct 14, 2009):

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global

warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have

broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4

inches of snow.

...The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at

the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. ...

Tom Wigley email to Ben Santer copy to Susan Solomon, Phil Jones, Tom Karl,

Gavin Schmidt (December 16, 2008):

Even over 1979 to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From

memory we did not account for this in our paper -- but it is an

important issue.

2. Questions about the AR4 models raised by Susan Solomon (the U.S. lead

on the AR4) and one paper was enough to seriously challenge the IPCC

results:

Susan Solomon email to Tom Wigley and Tom Karl copied to Phil Jones and Ben

Santer (December 30, 2007):

...The

dialogue on how to handle the

to The attached paper by Forster et al.

appeared It taught me something I

namely that ozone losses and

higher
influence of downwelling longwave.

No global general circulation model can possibly be expected to simulate

this correctly unless it

observed

and any 'discrepancies' are not

of g.

Peter Thorne(Met Office Hadley Centre) to Susan Solomon copy to Tom Wigley

Thomas R Karl, Phil Jones , Ben Santer (January 2, 2008):

Maybe we need to step back and rephrase the question in terms of the

physics rather than aiming solely to rebutt Douglass et al? In this case the

key physical questions in my view would be:

2. Is there really a stratospheric radiative influence? If so, how low

does it go? What is the cause? Are the numbers consistent with the

underlying governing physics or simply an artefact of residual obs

errors?

3. Can any models show trend behaviour that deviates from a SALR on

multi-decadal timescales? If so, what is it about the model that causes

this effect? Physics? Forcings? Phasing of natural variability? Is it

also true on shorter timescales in this model?

I think in the future the Forster et al paper may be seen as the more

scientifically significant result when Douglass et al is no longer cared

about ...

EPA at 74 FR 66,524:

The Administrator acknowledges that some aspects of climate change

science and the projected impacts are more certain than others. Our state of

knowledge is strongest for recently observed, large-scale changes.

Uncertainty tends to increase in characterizing changes at smaller

(regional) scales relative to large (global) scales. Uncertainty also

increases as the temporal scales move away from present, either

backward, but more importantly forward in time. Nonetheless, the

current state of knowledge of observed and past climate changes and
their causes enables projections of plausible future changes under

different scenarios of anthropogenic forcing for a range of spatial and

temporal scales

EPA Response to Comments, Vol. 4 (4-34):

With respect to climate modeling, we agree that the TSD section on

projected changes in U.S. temperature, precipitation patterns, and sea level

relies in part on models that are necessarily global in scope, given that

climate changes in one region can, in turn, affect climate in other regions.

However, we disagree that our treatment of model results was

inappropriately focused on global impacts or failed to adequately

distinguish between U.S. and Canadian effects. And we also disagree

that EPA’s use of IPCC’s regional analysis of North America is

inappropriate or scientifically flawed.

Jagadish Shukla (Lead Author IPCC 2007) email copied to Susan Solomon

(February 13, 2008):

Dear All,

I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on

issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1

(sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).

"There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in the

work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific

basis for action".

1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the

policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on

climate change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language

with a higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs),

how confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?

I would like to submit that the current climate models have such

large errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we

are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for

"action" at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am

strictly referring to science based adaptation.
For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building

the city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of

the Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies

in simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.

It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make

billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected

regional climate change based on models that do not even describe

and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate

variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not

guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at

the very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible

science.

2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the

IPCC desires that all models submitted by all governments be

considered equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because

it may have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4

has shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The

models used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus

metric.

Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity of

regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number of

dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is

not necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it

is possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient climate

models are used by large communities simply because it is convenient to

use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution IPCC model does not

correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient response, a highresolution regional model, forced by the lateral boundary conditions from

the coarse model, can not improve the response. Considering the

important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks in the climate

system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models themselves be run

at sufficiently high resolution.

4. Questions about whether all of the IPCC models are accurate enough, new
trick of “weighting” mentioned, admission that there are no sub-set of

models with any skill:

Ben Santer email to Phil Jones copied to Tom Wigley (December 5, 2007):

Just a quick response to the issue of "model weighting" which you

and Carl raised in your emails.

... I'm now in the process of repeating our water vapor

D[etection]&A[ttribution] study using a subset of the original 22 models.

This subset will comprise 10-12 models which are demonstrably more

successful in capturing features of the observed mean state and variability

of water vapor and SST - particularly features crucial to the D&A problem

(such as the low-frequency variability). We've had fun computing a whole

range of metrics that might be used to define such a subset of "better"

models.

The ultimate goal is to determine the sensitivity of our water vapor

D&A results to model quality. I think that this kind of analysis will

be unavoidable in the multi-model world in which we now live.

Given substantial inter-model differences in simulation quality, "one

model, one vote" is probably not the best policy for D&A work!

A further issue, of course, is that we are relying on results from fully

coupled A/OGCMs, and are making trend comparisons over relatively

short periods (several decades). On these short timescales, estimates of

the "true" trend in response to the applied 20c3m forcings are quite

sensitive to natural variability noise (as Peter Thorne's 2007 GRL

paper clearly illustrates). Because of such chaotic variability, even

a hypothetical model with perfect physics and forcings would yield

a distribution of tropospheric temperature trends over 1979 to 1999,

some of which would show larger or smaller cooling than observed. ...

.... The results are fascinating, and show (at least for water vapor and

SST) that every model has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. It

is difficult to identify a subset of models that CONSISTENTLY does well

in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.
5. The only modeling that EPA consultants conducted raised major issues of

competence using IPCC models, the models used produce conflicting results

not unlike the models used in the discredited 2000 US National Assessment

conducted by Tom Karl (co-chair with Jerry Mellilo and Anthony Jantos)

EPA at 74 FR 66,525:

Modeling studies discussed in EPA’s Interim Assessment [28] show that simulated

climate change causes increases in summertime ozone concentrations over

substantial regions of the country, though this was not

uniform, and some areas showed little change or decreases, though the

decreases tend to be less pronounced than the increases.

28 U.S. EPA (2009) Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S.

Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground- Level Ozone. An

Interim Report of the U.S. EPA Global Change Research Program. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–07/094

excerpts:

Coupling atmospheric chemical processes and the climate system

presents considerable challenges because of the large number of

physical, chemical, and biological processes involved, many of which are

poorly understood, all interacting in complex ways.

Second, the science of modeling climate and atmospheric chemistry for the

purposes of understanding the sensitivity of regional air quality to climate

change is in its early stages. This effort highlights a number of uncertainties

that limit the information that can be provided to support decision-making,

as well as what work is needed (some currently underway) to begin

addressing these uncertainties.

In general, differences between climate simulations tend to be more

pronounced at the regional scales considered in this report than at the

global scale.

For example, there were differences across modeling groups in the

regions of the country where simulated increases in cloud cover, and hence

decreases in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, partially

counteracted the effects of warming temperatures on O3 concentrations in
these regions. This highlights current limitations in our ability to

understand regional impacts of global climate change.

SUMMARY OF POLICY RELEVANT FINDINGS

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth

Assessment Report (AR4) states, “Warming of the climate system is

unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global

average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice,

and rising global average sea level” (IPCC, 2007). Directly relevant to

EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment is the IPCC

finding that, “Future climate change may cause significant air quality

degradation by changing the dispersion rate of pollutants, the chemical

environment for ozone and aerosol generation and the strength of emissions

from the biosphere, fires and dust. The sign and magnitude of these effects

are highly uncertain and will vary regionally.”

IV. Modeling Uncertainties

A. Simulated future U.S. regional air quality is highly sensitive to model

configuration choices in the integrated global-to-regional climate and air

quality modeling systems used in this assessment.

3.2.2.3 Impacts of Global Climate and Emission Changes on U.S. Air

Quality: University of Illinois

The University of Illinois ...to capture a wider range of sensitivities, they

built different versions of this system, which combines multiple GCMs

(PCM and the Hadley Centre Model, HadCM3),

Physical and dynamical arguments suggest that future decreases in the

equator-to-pole temperature gradient should drive poleward shifts in the

mid-latitude storm tracks, and that this may lead to decreases in the

frequency of cyclone ventilation of pollutants in the Northeast and Midwest.

The results from the Harvard 1 experiment show this clearly, while

those from the CMU experiment do not seem to.

Again from the IPCC AR4: “What does the accuracy of a climate

model’s simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the

accuracy of its projections of climate change? This question is just

beginning to be addressed...” (IPCC, 2007: Ch. 8).