Richard Muller, a well-respected physicist and former MacArthur Foundation grantee, put together BEST, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, to try to establish reliable temperature data sets that could be used to evaluate the extent of global warming. The idea was that at all parties in the debate over the cause of global warming could use the same sets of temperature data, even if they disagreed on how they should be interpreted.
Earlier this month Dr. Muller took the unusual step of publishing his results without going through any sort of peer-review process. The lack of peer-review doesn't really bother me, because an important (and public) project such as Dr. Muller was engaged in will be peer-reviewed eventually by any number of interested and talented professionals and amateurs. But in this case, he would have been well-advised to seek some sort of review before he published his initial reports.
The first opinions from the mainstream media were that the BEST findings settled the global warming debate by showing late 20th century warming. That, of course, would not be the case, since the warming that has occurred in the temperature record has not been widely rejected among skeptics. It is the cause of the warming, and whether it is a bad thing, that is at the heart of most skeptics' arguments.
Today we learn that Judith Curry, a well-respected climatologist and co-author of the BEST report, is taking Muller to task for his premature release of two of the four BEST reports. Steve McIntyre, who operates the Climate Audit website, has posted on the subject, and noted several problems with the BEST analysis. Mr. McIntyre also believes the data may confirm the end of the Little Ice Age, which in turn suggests the Medieval Warm Period occurred, a time during the Middle Ages when the world was warmer than today. Anthony Watts, who cooperated with Dr. Muller in evaluating the effect of urban heat islands on the temperature record, has objected to Muller using 60 years of data to compare with Watts' 30 years of data. Jeff Id notes that there is a significant error in the calculations Muller used. Whether these folks are right or wrong, Dr. Muller probably would have been well-advised to listen to them before going all-out with the press release first.
And to top it all off, the BEST data show that the last 10 years have shown no warming. That has seriously puzzled the climate alarmists, according to a report that was on Greenwire.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Stucky Returns Mining NPDES Permit Appeal To Environmental Quality Board
On April 27th I posted on the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's appeal to the Kanawha County Circuit Court of a decision of the Environmental Quality Board - "DEP Appeals Environmental Quality Board Decision Remanding Patriot Mining NPDES Permit." Judge Stucky heard the appeal and agreed with the DEP and Patriot Mining that the EQB failed to explain how the DEP was to establish numeric limits in the permit that would protect narrative water quality standards:
In order to comply with the EQB's Final Order, WVDEP would have to determine theAs a result, Judge Stucky remanded the case to the EQB to more fully explain its decision:
specific levels of conductivity, TDS, and sulfate that have reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excess of narrative criteria. WVDEP concedes that it is impossible to
establish a numeric benchmark that will ensure the protection of the narrative criteria.
Although the EQB commanded WVDEP to establish effluent limits for conductivity, TDS,
and sulfate, they failed to explain through what CWA mechanism it was regulating these
parameters, mention WVSCI, or explain a basis which to proceed. Additionally, while the
EQB rejected Respondent's proposed effluent limits, they provided no clear guidance on
how to contrive these effluent limits.
This Court ORDERS the following. This case is REMANDED with the followingYou can see the decision here. Thanks to Jennifer Hughes, who handled the appeal for the DEP, and who forwarded the decision.
directions: the EQB shall provide written supplemental findings detailing a reasoned and
articulate decision in the Final Order. Additionally, these findings should include guidance to
calculate threshold values for regulating conductivity, TDS, and sulfate.
West Virginia DEP Issues General Permit For Pesticide Application
Although the time for comment has passed, I thought this notice of issuance of a general permit for pesticide application was worth mentioning. Several years ago the Sixth Circuit decided that the application of pesticides (and herbicides) that could reach a water body constituted a discharge of pollutants through a point source, which means that an NPDES permit is required. The court reasoned that the pesticides were not intended to reach waters of the United States, and if they did they were pollutants at that point, and no longer products. As a result of that decision, EPA advised states that they needed to issue permits for pesticide application. Since pesticide spraying is so ubiquitous, many states, including West Virginia, have decided to issue a general permit allowing spraying under certain conditions that are specified in the general permit.
The Sixth Circuit decision that started this is National Cotton v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). Environmental and industry groups had challenged an EPA rule that exempted pesticide spraying from NPDES permitting. Challenges were filed in eleven circuit courts throughout the United States, and then consolidated in the Sixth Circuit.
Here is the general permit notice.
Public Notice No.: Pesticide General Permit
Public Notice Date: August 24, 2011
GENERAL WV/NPDES WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FROM HIGHWAY OR PESTICIDE GENERAL PERMIT FOR POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES WV/NPDES PERMIT NO. WV0116645
The Division of Water and Waste Management is proposing to issue the General WV/NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit to regulate the discharge of wastewater into the waters of the State from the application of (1) biological pesticides or (2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue (hereinafter collectively “pesticides”), when the pesticide application is for one of the following pesticide use patterns:
1. Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control - to control public
health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that develop or are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing or flowing water.
Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests in this use category include mosquitoes and black flies.
2. Aquatic Weed and Algae Control - to control weeds, algae, and
pathogens that are pests in water and at water’s edge, including ditches and/or canals.
3. Animal Pest Control - to control animal pests in water and at water’s
edge. Animal pests in this use category include fish, lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens.
4. Forest Canopy Pest Control - application of a pesticide to a forest
canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g., insect or pathogen) where, to target the pests effectively, a portion of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to water."
The General Permit will authorize the operation and maintenance of establishments engaged in pesticide applications or parts thereof, and the direct discharge of treated wastewater to the waters of the State. It is proposed that this General Permit be issued for a five (5) year term. This permit shall only be issued if EPA's final Pesticide General Permit is issued.
The Director of the Division of Water and Waste Management retains authority to require any owner/operator to apply for and obtain an individual WV/NPDES Permit. This authority will be exercised when the Director determines that such individual permit will better protect the receiving water.
The Draft Permit and Fact Sheet may be inspected by appointment between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management, Public Information Office, 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the Division at a nominal cost.
Any interested persons may submit written comments on the Draft Permit.
Comments will be accepted until September 23, 2011. They should be addressed
to:
Director, Division of Water and Waste Management Department of Environmental Protection
601 57th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Attention: Devereux, Lori K
Phone: (304) 926-0499, Extension 1065
Fax: (304) 926-0463
E mail: Lori.K.Devereux@wv.gov
All comments received within this period will be considered prior to acting on the Draft Permit. Correspondence should include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer; and a concise statement of the nature of the issues being raised.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Lori Devereux at (304) 926-0499, Extension 1057.
TMDLs Developed For Elk and Lower Kanawha Rivers
The DEP is accepting comment on the Total Maximum Daily Loads that have been prepared for the Elk River and the Lower Kanawha River. The following is the aannouncement for the Lower Kanawha, but a similar announcement was made for the Elk River, except that the public meeting was held Sept 27 at Elkview Middle School.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is announcing a comment period on proposed water quality improvement plans for selected streams in the Lower Kanawha River Watershed, located in southwestern West Virginia.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is announcing a comment period on proposed water quality improvement plans for selected streams in the Lower Kanawha River Watershed, located in southwestern West Virginia.
The DEP welcomes input and comments from the public on the proposed plan known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The comment period began Sept. 12 and extends through Oct. 14, inclusively.
A TMDL is defined as the amount of a pollutant which can be discharged into a stream and still allow the stream to meet water quality standards. Each of the streams under TMDL development has been identified as violating state water quality standards. The pollutants of concern are pH, total iron, dissolved aluminum, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform. In addition, some streams have also been identified as having impairments to biological integrity.
A public meeting is scheduled for Sept. 28 to present a general discussion of the draft TMDLs and to answer questions regarding the proposed TMDLs. The meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at Winfield High School in Winfield, W.Va.
Written comments on the proposed plans may be submitted by U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and fax. The preferred form for comment submissions is e-mail or disk in order to expedite the review and response process. Written comments should be postmarked no later than Oct. 14, 2011. Comments should be sent to:
Steve Young – Lower Kanawha TMDLs
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
601 57th Street
Charleston, WV 25304
E-mail: stephen.a.young@wv.gov
The TMDLs are available for review on DEP’s webpage:
CDs may also be obtained by calling Steve Young at (304) 926-0495, TTY 711
(304) 558-2751.
If you go to the DEP website, you'll see that TMDLs were done for the following constituents:
| Elk | |||
Stream name | Date approved | Pollutants | |
| Draft Elk TMDL Report | |||
| Draft TMDL presentation from September 27, 2011 - Elkview Middle School | |||
 Fecal allocations spreadsheet | |||
| Metals and pH allocations spreadsheet | |||
| Selenium allocations spreadsheet | |||
| Elk River TMDL and tributaries | 2001 | Al, Fe, Pb | |
| Decision rationale | |||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
