^^holy crap, I agree with everything you've said in here the last few days. That's some kind of first.

6/26/2009 11:00:23 PM

Quote :

"Because these particles would likely be placed in the stratosphere. Once there, how would you go about removing them once the earth enters its natural cooling trend? How will these aerosol particles interact the molecules already present in the atmosphere? To me, this sounds as dangerous as attempting to control hurricanes but with even worse consequences."

The atmospheric life-cycle of aerosols is much, MUCH shorter than that of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, when released into the atmosphere, stays there for thousands of years. In that respect, the die has largely been cast and we are just waiting to see the results of boosting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. Even if we stop burning fossil fuels today, CO2 levels will be unnaturally elevated for thousands of years.

Reflective aerosols fall back to Earth via precipitation, unlike CO2. They would have an atmospheric life of months or years, not the millenia that CO2 hangs around. So you needn't worry your little environmentalist mind about them sending us into an ice age, or a disasterous series of environmental over-corrections. Worry about acid rain, maybe, especially if we decide to use sulfur dioxide as the reflective aerosol of choice. But aerosols hanging around in the stratosphere too long is not a legitimate concern.

6/27/2009 3:30:24 PM

You are mistaken. CO2 falls with rain, just not like some others. CO2 dissolves in falling water, making it slightly acidic, then seeps underground, and can get trapped in rocks.

Also, it has been said repeatedly that human emitted CO2 is a tiny fraction of the CO2 that is emitted naturally on an annual basis. All that natural CO2 emitted by rotting plants, erupting volcanoes, exhailed by bacteria, animals, etc, goes somewhere. There are natural processes to remove it outside the normal plant growth mechanism.

As such, it seems to me that CO2 emitted today will not stay there forever, being removed and returned in large quantities. According to wiki, the atmosphere contains 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes) of CO2 and humans alone emit 27 billion tonnes each year. As such, humans would replace all the carbon in the atmosphere in 111 years. That said, scientists say CO2 levels will double by 2050, so something else is going on as well.

6/27/2009 5:18:01 PM

Of course a tiny bit of carbon dioxide will ionize in the water vapor in the air, producing carbonic acid, and fall out of the sky when it rains. I should not have stated otherwise. However, this amount is almost negligible compared to aerosols that interact more directly with water and water vapor.

Your math is fucked up. Carbon-releasing events, such as a huge volcano erupting, cause elevated CO2 levels for thousands of years. However, the sulfur dioxide, nitroxides and other particulate mass falls out of the atmosphere in a matter of months or years. This is why scientists have discovered temperature decreases immediately after massive volcano eruptions, followed by increases for many hundreds of years.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : 2]

6/27/2009 5:37:29 PM

Well, math is one of those magical things in that it can be universally proven. As such, if my math is fucked up, then fix it for me or at least show me my error.

That said, maybe the negative feedback is slow to course, so increasing CO2 a whole bunch only slightly increases the rate CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. That would explain why humans have been able to have such an impact; but it also suggests that impact with shrink over time as the natural CO2 removal processes kick into gear at higher CO2 concentrations.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/27/2009 7:25:30 PM

seriously... let's pump a bunch of shit into the upper atmosphere in the name of an unproven theory based on fraudulent numbers. Really, let's do that. What a fucking great idea

6/28/2009 12:26:03 AM

Well, considering that we are ALREADY pumping much more shit into the atmosphere, and given that it's patently obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass that it is contributing to the recent warming the Earth, maybe we should have a backup plan in place in case it starts to get REALLY hot.

6/28/2009 1:22:35 AM

Odd fact, there is no recent warming. Temperatures have flatlined since 2001. So, the shit must not have that much of an effect.

6/28/2009 9:42:37 AM

temperatures are not increasing at the rate they were in the late '90s, but they are still much higher than the average temperatures of the last century, so you could say that there has been "recent warming" or at the very least, elevated recent temperatures that can be attributed to the impact of greenhouse gases, among other factors.

6/28/2009 2:18:18 PM

two words for everybody talking about temperatures flatlining: phase change

6/28/2009 2:27:12 PM

Changing from a gas to a plasma...?

6/28/2009 2:44:12 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of quark-gluon plasma.

6/28/2009 6:37:49 PM

Quote :

"and given that it's patently obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass that it is contributing to the recent warming the Earth,"

Oh, so Lindzen has his head up his ass? Really?

Quote :

"but they are still much higher than the average temperatures of the last century"

got any proof for that massively false statement? Don't point to James Hansen, cause his numbers are about as valid as Stevie Wonder describing a picture in a book.

6/28/2009 9:46:41 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so Lindzen has his head up his ass? Really?"

Maybe you should actually read what Lindzen says before you spout off bullshit like this. Lindzen isn't necessarily wrong about climate science. He's just a skeptic, primarily a skeptic of using 30 years of accurate temperature records to extrapolate conclusions. But he believes, as most scientists do, that the increase of CO2 has had an impact. He just hates the alarmism and crazy predictions out there (much like me). Read this:

Quote :

"Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth"

- Richard Lindzen, 2004, from the WSJ

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf

Quote :

"got any proof for that massively false statement? Don't point to James Hansen, cause his numbers are about as valid as Stevie Wonder describing a picture in a book."

Your favorite, Richard Lindzen, just said as much in the passage I quoted.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : 2]

6/28/2009 10:10:20 PM

how do you take "temps are .5C higher than they were a century ago" to mean "temps are much higher than they were for the last century?" For one, those two statements are not analogous. For another .5C isn't "much higher" by almost any measure.

Quote :

"Your favorite, Richard Lindzen, just said as much in the passage I quoted."

No, he didn't.

And, his message there is far and away different than all of the other claims being made by the fearmongerers. He merely admits the obvious: higher temperatures right now, CO2 has increased, CO2 is a GHG. That's about it.

6/28/2009 10:18:46 PM

Quote :

"how do you take "temps are .5C higher than they were a century ago" to mean "temps are much higher than they were for the last century?" For one, those two statements are not analogous. For another .5C isn't "much higher" by almost any measure."

When comparing across days, .5C is nothing. When comparing averages across years, it becomes significant. Across decades, as we are looking at now, and that .5 degrees C is, in fact, a large increase in temperature. Temperatures in the past 10 years are almost certainly higher than they have been over any 10 year stretch of the last millenia or so and maybe longer, according to most temperature reconstructions. I'm sure you are gonna make some noise about that one, but it's true. If you refuse to believe in any temperature reconstructions because 1 or 2 have been discredited (Mann and maybe Hansen), there is no reason to debate with you. That would make you a hack.

Quote :

"No, he didn't. And, his message there is far and away different than all of the other claims being made by the fearmongerers. He merely admits the obvious: higher temperatures right now, CO2 has increased, CO2 is a GHG whose increase is likely to warm the earth. That's about it."

Fixed. Damn, son, the quote is right above you. Try to get it right.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 10:30 PM. Reason : 2]

6/28/2009 10:26:49 PM

No solid to liquid. H2O takes in a lot of heat when melting or boiling and theres a lot less solid h2o with more gas liquid and vapor.

6/28/2009 10:27:14 PM

Quote :

"Temperatures in the past 10 years are almost certainly higher than they have been over any 10 year stretch of the last millenia or so and maybe longer, according to most temperature reconstructions."

Ahh, yes, those vaunted temperature reconstructions. The fraudulent ones that show no medieval warming period or little ice age. And the same models that can't even fucking tell us what is going on right now. Really, let's rely on those fraudulent things...
And simple historical records show that temperatures have been much higher in the past thousand years. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Quote :

"Fixed. Damn, son, the quote is right above you. Try to get it right."

Not really. he admits that it is a GHG, which means, by definition, that more of it is likely to increase the temperature. If you were honest, though, you'd also point out that he also says that the increase is logarithmic. And that he says almost 3/4ths of the warming possible has already occurred.

6/28/2009 10:32:51 PM

I edited my last post, but maybe you didn't see it so I'll repeat it:

Quote :

" If you refuse to believe in any temperature reconstructions because 1 or 2 have been discredited (Mann and maybe Hansen), there is no reason to debate with you. That would make you a hack."

6/28/2009 10:33:52 PM

the problem is that all of the reconstructions use practically the same methodology, which was proven to be faulty. As well, they use improper data sets. When you are trying to prove that X influences Y, you shouldn't use another factor Z as a proxy for Y when Z is directly influenced by X as well.

6/28/2009 10:36:09 PM

So that is what your argument boils down to. Scientists are producing faulty reconstructions based on incorrect methodology. Thousands of scientists. All using "improper data sets".

...Riiiiight. Nice arguing with you.



*slowly backs out of this thread to avoid wasting any more time*

6/28/2009 10:43:31 PM

when you look at the studies, you see them, time and again, using these data sets. You also see, oddly enough, people who were a part of the original fraudulent hockey stick, putting their names on these further "reconstructions." yes, we should trust the "second tries" of fraudsters.

But hey, I'm glad to see that you admit defeat.

6/28/2009 10:48:47 PM

Quote :

"This is why scientists have discovered temperature decreases immediately after massive volcano eruptions, followed by increases for many hundreds of years."

Ah, this just clicked in my head. Mt. Tambora had a massive eruption in the 1800s that caused the year without a summer. And then according to your quote, all the CO2 it emitted can be blamed for the increased temperatures of the last 150 years.

Quote :

"temperatures are not increasing at the rate they were in the late '90s, but they are still much higher than the average temperatures of the last century, so you could say that there has been "recent warming" or at the very least, elevated recent temperatures that can be attributed to the impact of greenhouse gases, among other factors."

Should I assume you could care less that the sun's solar activity over the past 150 years being higher than any other time for almost 1,000 years?. Well, until solar cycle 23 of course. The sun's activity has plummeted in recent years, and oh look, the global temp has declined noticeably. Enough so to offset all the warming of the 20th century.

6/29/2009 10:46:28 AM

what graph, exactly, does the "hockey stick" refer to anyway?

6/29/2009 10:46:44 AM

Regardless of your beliefs, can anyone agree with the EPA's refusal to agree to a public judicial hearing about the validity of their "global warming" scientific proof? If there is a consensus and the proof is so overwhelming it should be an open and shut case and remove all doubt from the climate realists. Instead, this lack of transparency (promised by Obama) is nothing but a massive expansion of government power, put in effect in an unconstitutional manner.

Quote :

"Should EPA Bow To Chamber's Demand? a reply by James Inhofe Monday, August 31st 2009 Should the Environmental Protection Agency be required to publicly defend its finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare? In April, the EPA released a proposal concluding that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants cause health problems. Now the agency is poised to release the final version of that ruling. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that before the decision is finalized, EPA should be required to defend its scientific conclusions in front of an administrative law judge. Chamber officials and other critics claim that the Obama administration is suppressing internal agency studies that disagree with the proposed endangerment finding. Should the climate change data be reviewed in a public administrative law hearing? Would a public hearing make any difference? Or is the hearing request just an excuse to delay the agency's climate change decision? -- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com Reply by James Inhofe.... I begin by answering these questions with questions: Why would anyone oppose a full, open, transparent hearing to determine whether evidence supporting the most consequential regulatory decision of our time—affecting schools, hospitals, farms, apartment buildings, restaurants, nursing homes, and thousands of other sources—is up-to-date, accurate, and reflective of the best available scientific research? And why wouldn’t the Obama Administration, and its supporters in the environmental community, faced with a decision potentially imposing billions of dollars of costs on consumers and small businesses, favor a process that ensures maximum public participation and stakeholder input? The answer is simple: in dismissing the Chamber’s petition as “frivolous,” EPA has made clear that, even before finalizing its regulation and considering thousands of public comments, it has already decided the question of endangerment. And in so doing, it has ignored, either deliberately or through omission, reams of scientific data, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rigorously identified, undermining the case that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. EPA has also made clear that it doesn’t want to hear dissenting voices on this important question. This runs contrary to President Obama’s speech last December, in which he expressed his views on scientific integrity in the administrative process. As he said, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” Notably, EPA was presented recently with “inconvenient” research by Dr. Alan Carlin, a 38-year employee of the agency. Dr. Carlin, in impressive detail, explained that the agency’s endangerment finding rests on out-of-date and incomplete scientific data. He requested that the agency conduct an independent review, yet his superiors denied his request, and suppressed his report. Once this was revealed, I, along with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), launched an investigation into how the report was suppressed, and into the larger question of the process EPA used to review and analyze scientific data relevant to an endangerment determination. For guidance, I asked Dr. John Christy, Alabama’s state climatologist, and a former IPCC and CCSP lead author, to review Dr. Carlin’s work. Here’s what he found: “Dr. Carlin advocates a simple and scientific approach. He asks the question (in essence), ‘Have all other explanations besides greenhouse gases been carefully examined and eliminated as causes for what has occurred?’ The answer is no, and thus the scientific process has not been carried out on this issue. I believe an independent, objective assessment would find evidence that natural variations are large and can explain much of what the recent climate has done.” I should note that Dr. Christy’s assessment is widely shared within the scientific community. This is not a mere assertion, but a fact, which I have documented in a number of Senate Floor speeches, and on my website: there are hundreds of well-credentialed scientists raising legitimate questions about the science EPA is using. If, as EPA’s dismissive reaction to the Chamber’s petition implies, the science of global warming is settled, then an open, public hearing on the issue could only clarify and reinforce EPA’s view, thereby strengthening its case on endangerment. And any evidence presented contrary to EPA’s view—which, EPA presumably believes, would be immediately recognizable as erroneous—could be dispensed with in summary fashion, ensuring a quick hearing, and allowing EPA to meet its legal obligations. Yet EPA will have none of it, instead declaring ex cathedra that it alone possesses absolute certainty on the most complicated regulatory issue in the agency’s existence. Dr. Christy eloquently expressed his opposition to this anti-intellectual mindset: “And, as important, it is hubris to assume our knowledge is so complete and so accurate that we can model the full variability of a system with its millions of degrees of freedom—many unknown to us--and produce an accurate forecast.” In the humble spirit of questioning scientist, Dr. Christy calls for “a truly objective and independent examination of all of the data.” The Chamber clearly stands on the side of open debate, airing all views, regardless of where they fall—an approach that, as experience has shown, produces sound decision making and policies grounded in facts and real-world observations. Therefore, EPA has nothing to lose but everything to gain by granting a public hearing. Yet it is saying no to transparency, no to greater public input, and no to the best available science. EPA Administrator Jackson said earlier this year, “The American people will not trust us to protect their health or their environment if they do not trust us to be transparent and inclusive in our decision-making. To earn this trust, we must conduct business with the public openly and fairly.” By rejecting the Chamber’s request, on an issue of monumental importance to the American economy, do these words really have any meaning? "

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3953

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 9:59 AM. Reason : bypassing congress]

9/1/2009 9:58:44 AM

Quote :

"Terms of 'Endangerment' The EPA's anti-carbon rule is an admission that CO2 limits hurt the economy Cap and trade may be flopping around like a dying fish in Congress, but the Obama Administration isn't about to let the annoyance of democratic consent interfere with its climate ambitions. Almost as bad is the new evidence that it understands how damaging its carbon regulations and taxes will be and is pressing ahead anyway. The White House is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency's April "endangerment finding" that as a matter of law CO2 is a pollutant that threatens the public's health and must therefore be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Such a rulemaking would let the EPA impose the ossified command-and-control regulatory approach of the 1970s across the entire economy, even if Democrats never get around to passing a cap-and-tax bill. Yet a curious twist is buried in the EPA's draft rule. The trade press is reporting that the agency thinks it enjoys the discretion to target the new rules only to major industrial sources of carbon emissions, such as power plants, refineries, factories and the like. This so-called "tailoring rule" essentially rewrites clear statutory language of the Clean Air Act by bureaucratic decree. Because the act was never written to apply to today's climate neuroses, clean-air regulation is based on an extremely low threshold for CO2 emissions that will automatically transfer hundreds of thousands of businesses into the EPA's ambit. The agency is required to regulate sources that emit more than 250 tons of a given air pollutant annually, which may be reasonable for conventional pollutants like NOX or SOX. But this is a very low limit for ubiquitous CO2, and so would capture schools, hospitals, farms, malls, restaurants, large office buildings and many others. To exempt these sources, the tailoring rule unilaterally boosts the rule for greenhouse gases from 250 tons to 25,000 tons, an increase of two orders of magnitude. Well, well. In a speech in February, Obama EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson ridiculed those of us who warned about these consequences, saying that it was "a myth" that "EPA will regulate cows, Dunkin' Donuts, Pizza Hut, your lawnmower and baby bottles. . . . Somebody said to me today, 'kittens,' I like that one." Her routine got a big laugh from the like-minded Georgetown audience, but the new draft rule is a flat-out admission that the critics are right. The endangerment finding was prompted by the 5-4 2006 Supreme Court Mass. v. EPA decision, which relied on an extremely literal interpretation of the Clean Air Act to crowbar CO2 into the law. That decision has been a political windfall for cap-and-tax advocates because it has driven utilities and other businesses to the bargaining table as they've concluded that some carbon limits are inevitable. Yet the Supreme Court said nothing that would let the EPA simply decide on its own to apply the law to some unfavored business while giving others a pass. And the Clean Air Act is explicit about the 250-ton threshold. Team Obama's real motive in "tailoring" this rule is to limit the immediate economic impact of carbon limits to head off a political backlash. But even businesses that do get a pass shouldn't rest too easily. The green lobby will quickly sue to force the EPA to enforce fully its own rules and go after all carbon sources. And why not? The Obama Administration is deliberately flouting its own legal claims for political reasons. Its cynical political hope is that if Congress won't impose cap and tax, the courts will do it anyway. President Obama claims that his "new energy economy" will jump start growth and jobs. The EPA endangerment rule repudiates that claim once and for all. If the green future is going to be so bright, why does the White House want to exempt so many businesses from its glories?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388642894879438.html

9/3/2009 1:16:58 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of your beliefs, can anyone agree with the EPA's refusal to agree to a public judicial hearing about the validity of their "global warming" scientific proof?"

Not really trying to defend the EPA's position here, but a law expert might not be the best person to decide what qualifies as good science, much in the same way I worry when some constituents push to have the laws require books to present the theory of monotheistic intelligent design.

But I'd need to have paid a lot more attention to this discussion over all to have a firm position on the issues, that is just an at a glance response to the idea of judicial reviews of science.

9/4/2009 12:18:59 PM

It's truly amazing how far we've come since 2009, earlier posts in this thread are....great
(including myself in that too).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-skeptical-of-case-against-epa-climate-rule-1429201275

Its been a long time coming, but we are finally getting close to addressing (some) of our CO2 emissions.

[Edited on April 22, 2015 at 4:31 PM. Reason : Also current debate in NC: Should we plan for the coming EPA rules or stick our heads in the sand]

4/22/2015 4:22:51 PM

ridiculous. obama wants to reduce CO2... guess what trees need to live? CO2. hey lets limit CO2 so that trees have less of the main atmospheric gas they need to live. THIS WILL BE GREAT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

This man is a monster.

4/22/2015 5:49:00 PM

Well that's a pretty weak troll attempt

4/22/2015 7:45:02 PM

Hmm. seems US CO2 emissions are back where they were back in the sixties, all without any interference from the government. I think we should declare victory and stop trying to regulate CO2.

4/28/2015 10:26:33 PM

no government interference? CAFE standards, Stimulus investments, various subsidies, blah blah. we have a hodge podge right now, but I don't see how you can say the government hasn't nudged us toward lowering CO2 emissions.

4/29/2015 7:17:02 AM

But all that you list has had very little impact to our CO2 emissions. One might argue that they have actually increased our CO2 emissions through mal-investment. Government boondoggles tend to involve a lot of wasted construction, etc. The vast majority of our CO2 emissions reduction has come from private and state owned land in the form of natural gas. Our current CO2 emissions would be even lower if the federal government wasn't actively preventing drilling on federal lands.

4/29/2015 11:38:10 AM

The government is regulating me exhaling?!

4/29/2015 11:54:29 AM

I've said it before and i'll say it again, how can we possibly regulate CO2 emissions to an acceptable level, possibly increasing energy costs for people who can't really afford it, when you've got China and India who still have emerging middle classes, who can't wait to buy their first car. Until we can regulate CO2 emissions of other soveriegn entities, what's the point?

4/29/2015 2:05:40 PM

^^^There are more factors involved in the switch from coal to NG than just the glut of NG and its cheap price. More than half of all states have renewable portfolio standards and NG plants are better (and cheaper) at cycling up or down based on what renewables are contributing to the system. New mercury rules, SO2 and NOx rules were rolled out in 2010ish I believe, also making coal less competitive from a price point of view. Both of these greatly helped along the rush to NG. Besides, there is no indication that the price of NG can stay this low forever,

^China and India already have pilot carbon trading programs. That's more than we can say at this point.

4/29/2015 3:56:20 PM

I"m sure China's wink wink nod nod carbon trading system will work wonderfully. With China almost doubling coal energy production over the next 25 years the bottom line is their CO2 emissions are going nowhere but up up up.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH

[Edited on April 30, 2015 at 1:03 PM. Reason : link]

4/30/2015 1:02:45 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/china-s-carbon-emissions-drop-for-the-first-time-since-2001

Quote :

"China Carbon Emissions Decline as 2014 Global CO2 Stays Flat"

I doubt this trend stays negative for China over the next 5 years, but it is the beginning of leveling off trend and eventually reversal. It makes there peaking of emissions in 2030 seem very achievable.


itshappening.gif

4/30/2015 1:17:00 PM

Not surprising given their economic slow down...which is most likely a short term affair.

Hope springs eternal...

I'm not hating on this (what benefit would that have) just being pragmatic about it.

[Edited on April 30, 2015 at 1:20 PM. Reason : k]

4/30/2015 1:18:24 PM

I get the pragmatism, China is turning a huge ship and its going to take time and a lot of motivation on their part.

But they are investing 10s of billions every year, there are a huge amount of efficiency changes they can still make relatively quickly. All signs seem to indicate them being pretty serious about this issue IMO. It's also important to keep their economic slowdown in perspective - they are still growing at 5-7% (maybe 2-3% if you really think they are cooking the books). That still indicate a decoupling of growth for CO2 emissions IMO.

4/30/2015 1:32:59 PM