EPA Draft Report on the Environment FOIA Email 6.19.03 (c)

1. A
JiS I'Page Ilofl16
RECORD TYPE: FEDERAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR:"S. Fred Singer" <singer~sepp.org> ( "S. Fred Singer" <singer~sepp.org>[ UN
CREATION DATE/TTME:19-JUN-2003 09:14:46.00
SUBJECT:: Fwd: Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate
Change
TO:rlindzen~mit~eau ( rlindzen~mit.edu UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:mebell~cei~org C mebell~cei.org [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:wsoon~cfa.harvara~edu C wsoon~cfa.harvard~edu IUNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:Kenneth L. Peel ( CN=Kenneth L. Peel/OU=CEQ/O=EOP@EOP [ CEQ
READ: UNKNOWN
CC:flsmith~cei.org ( flsmith~cei.org [ UNKNOWN
READ: UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Dick
Tx for yr talk yesterday.
I understand yr pessimism but that's because
you live in Cambridge in the
People's Republic of Mass.y I on the other hand
read the Wash Times every
morning and talk to my friends at CEI, Cato and
all the other Cooler
Heads.y It does affect one's outlook.
And -- collectively -y we are getting through.y~
See attached and note the
consternation.
Hope you enjoy the spoof on the NYT that I sent
you yesterday
Bet~yyq~yyy Fred
PS~Y I attach my think piece for Mahoney on climate
models.yyy I have now
had a chance to study and compare the strengths
and weaknesses of the
NCAR, GISS, and CFDL models.
To: deckerfw~juno.com, joseph-h~dgweb.com, singer~sepp.org,
?V chos~mindspring.com, veeking~earthlink. corn
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 00:51:53 -0700
Subject: Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data
on Climate Change
X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33
From: Laurence D Mendenhall <ldmendenhall~juno.com>
X-pstn-levels:yy'yy (C:83.1967 P:95.9108 R:95.9108
S:59.3911
X-pstn-settings: 4 (1.5000:4.5000) pmCr
X-pstn-addresses: from <ldmendenhall~juno.com>
This looks like a positive development.yz But
of course the NYT puts it in
a negative light.y Note especially the third paragraph
from the end.9
Someone must be getting through to the White House!
file://D:SEARCII_7_9_03_CEQ_1156_f_26mbh003_ceq.txt
8/15/2003

2. Page 2 of 16
* Larry
June 19, 2003
Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on
Climate Change
I
By ANDREW C. REVKTN with KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
l8fde7a5.jpghe Environmental Protection
Agency is preparing to publish a
draft report next week on the state of
the environment, but after editing
by the White House, a long section describing
risks from rising global
temperatures has been whittled to a few
noncommittal paragraphs.
The report, commissioned in 2001 by the
agency's administrator, Christie
Whitman, was intended to provide the first
comprehensive review of what is
known about various environmental problems,
where gaps in understanding
exist and how to fill them.
Agency officials said it was tentatively
scheduled to be released early
next week, before Mrs. Whitman steps down
on June 27, ending a troubled
time in office that often put her at odds
with President Bush.
Drafts of the climate section, with changes
sought by the White House,
were given to The New York Times yesterday
by a former E.P.A. official,
along with earlier drafts and an internal
memorandum in which some
officials protested the changes. Two agency
officials, speaking on the
condition of anonymity, said the documents
were authentic.
The editing eliminated references to many
studies concluding that warming
is at least partly caused by rising concentrations
of smokestack and
tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health
and ecosystems.
Among the deletions were conclusions about
the likely human contribution
to warming from a 2001 report on climate
by the National Research Council
that the White House had commissioned and
that President Bush had endorsed
in speeches that year. White House officials
also deleted a reference to a
1999 study showing that global temperatures
had risen sharply in the
previous decade compared with the last 1,000
years. In its place,
administration officials added a reference
to a new study, partly financed
by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning
that conclusion.
In the end, E.P.A. staff members, after
discussions with administration
officials, said they decided to delete the
entire discussion to avoid
criticism that they were selectively filtering
science to suit policy.
Administration officials defended the report
and said there was nothing
untoward about the process that produced
it. Mrs. Whitman said that she
was "perfectly comfortable" with the edited
version and that the
differences over climate change should not
hold up the broader assessment
of the nation's air, land and water.
"The first draft, as with many first drafts,
contained everything, " she
said in a brief telephone interview from
the CBS studios in Manhattan,
where she was waiting to tape "The Late
Show With David Letterman."
file://D:SEARCH_7_9_03_CEQ_1156_f_26mbh0o3_ceq~txt
8/15/2003

3. Page 3 of 16
-"Asit went through the review, there was less consensus
on the science
and conclusions on climate change," Ms. Whitman said.
"So rather than go
out with something half-baked or not put out the whole
report, we felt it
was important for us to get this out because there
is a lot of really good
information that people can use to measure our successes."
James L. Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental
White House advisory group, said, "It would be utterly Quality, a
inaccurate to
suggest that this administration has not provided
quite an extensive
discussion about the state of the climate. Ultimately,
E.P.A. made the
decision not to include the section on climate change
because we had these
ample discussions of the subject already."
But private environmental groups sharply criticized
the changes when they
heard of them.
"Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in
forcing agency
officials to endorse junk science," said Jeremy Symons,
a climate policy
expert at the National Wildlife Federation. "This
is like the White House
directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment
data to paint a
rosy economic picture."
Drafts of the repor't have been circulating for months,
but a heavy round
of rewriting and cutting by White House officials
in late April raised
protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.
An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members
said that after the
changes by White House officials, the section on
climate "no longer
accurately represents scientific consensus on climate
change."
Another memorandum circulated at the same time said
that the easiest
course would be to accept the White House revisions
but that to do so
would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take
responsibility and
severe criticism from the science and environmental
communities for poorly
representing the science."
The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental
Quality,
although the Office of Management and Budget was also
involved, several
E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a
year that the White
House has sought to play down global warming in official
documents.
Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution
that for six
years had contained a section on climate was released
without one, and the
decision to delete it was made by Bush administration
appointees at the
agency with White House approval.
Like the September report, the forthcoming report
says the issues will be
dealt with later by a climate research plan being
prepared by the Bush
administration.
Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report E* on water
quality, ecological
conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and
other issues EJ*all start
with a summary statement about the potential impact
of changes
health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities on human
of the
agency.
But in the "Global Tssues" section of the draft returned
by the White
House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence
reading, "Climate
change has global consequences for human health and
the environment" was
file://DSEARCII_7_9_03 CEQ 1156_f_26mbh0O3ceeq.txt
8/15/2003

4. Page 4 of 16
cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: "The complexity of the
Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a
scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop
useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect
the global environment in the future."
Some E.P.A. staff members defended the document, saying that although
pared down it would still help policy makers and the agency address the
climate issue.
"This is a positive step by the agency," said an author of the report, who
did not want to be named, adding that it would help someone determine "if
a facility or pollutant is going to hurt my family or make it bad for the
birds, bees and fish out there."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
1600 S. Eads St.,99 Suite 712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
e-mail:y9 singer~sepp.org~yyyyy Web:y www.sepp.org
Tel:y 703-920-2744
E-faxy 815-461-7448; notify by e-mail before sending
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
> Thomas H. Huxley
* * ** * ** * **
"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, sir?
>J. M. Keynes
-~~~~ATTACHMENT 1…
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
Unable to convert NSREP0P1O1: [ATTACH.D872SRE0P01300HBM62.001 to ASCII,
The following is a HEX DUMP:
FFD8FFE000104A46494600010100000100010000FF'DBoo43000101010101010101010101010101
0101010101010101010o0101l101010ol10101010ololololololololololololo10101010101o
0l01~01010101010101010FF'DBoo430101010101010101o10lololololololololololo1ololol
01010l0101010101010l010101o10lo1010101010101010101010101010l010101010lo1010101
OlOlFFC00011080021001DO3Ol2200021101031101FFC4001Foo00010501010101010100000000
00000O000102030405060708090AOBFFC400B51000020103030204030h50504040000017D 0l203
0 0 04 0
110 51 2 2 13 1410613516107227114328l9lAl082342BlC~ll52DIF024336272g209OA161718
9 2 2 2
l lA 5 6 728292A3435363738393A434445464748494A535455565758595A636465666768696A
73747 76777
5 87 9 7A838485868788898A92939495969798999;.A2A3A4A5A6A7A8A9AAB2B3B4B5B6
B7B8B9BAC2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9CAD2D3D4D5D6D7D8D9DAElE2E3E4E5E6E7E8E9EAFIF2F3F4F5F6F7
F8F9FAFFC400lFlO1003010l10101010l01O01OO0oo0ooooooo102030405060708090AOBFFC400
B5110002010204040304070504040001027700010203110405213l061241510 1 11
76 7 3 2 2 3 2 8 10
8
14429lAlBlCl09233352F0156272D10A162434El25Fll718l9lA262728292A35363738393A4344
4 4 474 494
5 6 8 A535455565758595A636465666768696A737475767778797A828384s5869788898A
929394959697 98999AA2A3A4A5A6A7A8A9AAB2B3B4B5B6B7BSB9BAC2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9CAD2D3D4
D56789A23456789A23456FFFFFD00O00010103OF
83F6B2FlE7FC14C2DFF6A7FDA5EOF09F8CFF006E983C2D07ED01FI961FoD43ElEF117C7E8F4087
408FE22F88D34683438F4DBC5D3A3DlE3D396D934C4B05164964205B5020118AF89B56FDAF3F6D
CD0753BFD175DFDA83F6A8D1759D2EEA6BlD4F4 9D5BE35FC5BD3B53D3AF6DDCC771 677F6179E26
86AEA953AE2859I7505F6FF36F02BC4F2lCFOF57
file://D:SEARCH 7 9 03 CEQ_1156 f 26mbh003 ceq.txt 8/15/2003

5. s111is i66 AIM
Research with Climate Models-3 Tasks
SFS/6/3/03
In pursuing the goals of the CCSP, the climate modeling community should undertake
three important and distinct research tasks - listed here according to priority.
1. Validation of climate models against observations:
The most important task is the validation of models by comparing their results with
observations, primarily with temperatures of the past -50 years (where good data are
available) but also with precipitation, changes in ocean currents, and perhaps other
climate parameters.
For this purpose, a model must simulate the various forcings as accurately as possible,
incl. their spatial and temporal dependence. In addition to GH gases, this would include
the direct and indirect effects of different classes of aerosols (both natural and manmade),
stratospheric and tropospheric ozone, and variability of solar irradiance and solar wind
effects. Changes in land use and possibly growing air traffic can also influence climate
trends. The time resolution for specifying forcings should be at least a month and should
include day-night effects, where appropriate, with a resolution of one hour.
The model results should be the temperature fields and trends at different atmospheric
levels (from surface to stratosphere) with a time resolution of 1-3 months and at least
zonal spatial resolution. In addition, one would like to explore any trends in seasonal
ratios and in the diurnal temperature range (DTR).
In reviewing the history of climate modeling, e.g., in the three major IPCC reports, one
sees increasing sophistication and attempts to simulate important climate forcings.
Starting with only GH gases a decade ago, models have gradually added the interaction
with ocean circulation, the direct effects of sulfate aerosol, then ozone changes, and
finally volcanic events and solar irradiance changes. But current research points to
important forcings (like black carbon) that have not as yet been included in standard
models. So there has been remarkable progress - and we may yet discover other
forcings and feedbacks that must be included.
It is remarkable that every IPCC Summary has claimed that observed temperature trends
are in agreement with model results and that the "climate sensitivity" (the temperature
increase corresponding to a doubling of GH gas forcing) is between 1.5 and
4.5 C. Actually, slight changes in cloud parameters (like droplet-size distribution) can
yield even higher (or lower) values. We believe that the temperature record of the past
50 years is dominated by non-GH forcings and that climate sensitivity is less than 1.5C,
and perhaps much less - in which case fuiture temperature increases will be
inconsequential.
[The claimed validation presented in the IPCC-TAR Summary is unacceptable because it

6. shows only I) annual global mean temperature, 2) surface values, and 3) a limited
number of forcings (e.g., no Black Carbon, no indirect effects, no effects of solar wind).
It gains little by reaching back to the I1 9 th century, since forcings are poorly known and
temperature data are quite incomplete.]
2. Predicting the climate of 2100 and beyond:
For this purpose, the steady increase in GB gas concentration should eventually
overcome other forcings, like short-lived aerosols and the more or less periodic variations
of ozone and of solar activity.
Here the important task is to intercompare model results using only GH gas forcing
according to some agreed-to standard scenario. The purpose is not to predict a future
warming but to discover how mode] results depend on various parameterizations (e. g.,
of clouds) and other assumptions incorporated into particular models.
One measure of success would be the narrowing of the existing dispersion in climate
sensitivity results. The most important task -involving considerable research efforts -
will be to simulate successfully the important feedbacks of the atmosphere-ocean-land-
cryosphere system. In particular, one needs to establish the feedbacks, both positive and
negative, of clouds (from stratus to cirrus) and of upper-tropospheric water vapor.
3. Studying natural climate variability:
It is often claimed that a long-duration model run without any change in forcing can give
a realistic value of natural climate variability ("noise"). A priori, this seems doubtful,
and this doubt is reinforced by the fact that different models give different results for
"natural variability." It would be interesting to establish the causes for these differences
among models, esp. for coupled atmosphere-ocean models.
In Summary:
We visualize three distinct types of model studies. The first, a comparison with
observations, using all of the relevant forcings. The second, an Intercomparison between
models, using only GH gas forcing, over a 100-year period. The third is an
Intercomparison of long inns (>500 years) of unforced models to study internal
variability.