WWTBAM Bored

From Bloomberg News: Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. Last Updated: October 16, 2008 09:50 EDT

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

Tax increases, tax cuts don't matter compared to this, I may have to move to Poland

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Poland threatened on Wednesday to veto a December deadline for adopting ambitious European Union legislation to fight climate change unless changes are made to shield the coal-based Polish economy from the impact.

Won't this give the government the power to decide who has the right to exhale?

silvercamaro wrote:Won't this give the government the power to decide who has the right to exhale?

No.

Methane is also a greenhouse gas, though, and significantly more powerful than carbon dioxide. So get your farting in while you can. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silvercamaro wrote:Won't this give the government the power to decide who has the right to exhale?

No.

Methane is also a greenhouse gas, though, and significantly more powerful than carbon dioxide. So get your farting in while you can. --Bob

It ain't the head that will explode then ...

Or they could just issue butane lighters to everyone. But then we'd have even more flaming a**holes than we do now.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

From Bloomberg News: Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant (Update1)

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. Last Updated: October 16, 2008 09:50 EDT

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

Tax increases, tax cuts don't matter compared to this, I may have to move to Poland

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Poland threatened on Wednesday to veto a December deadline for adopting ambitious European Union legislation to fight climate change unless changes are made to shield the coal-based Polish economy from the impact.

I should treat this a little more seriously. Do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be left unregulated? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I should treat this a little more seriously.

If you must.

Bob78164 wrote:Do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be left unregulated? --Bob

Don't know how it can realistically be done. There's an awful lot of CO2 released just from breathing and burning fuel (and that includes anything combustible, like wood). You'd have to convert a huge fraction of industry over to solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. That won't happen any time soon. And it doesn't do anything for the non-industrialized countries or portions of countries where burning wood and similar fuels is the only method of heating and cooking for huge numbers of people. None of the heretofore suggested CO2 absorption methods are viable, either, at least the ones I'm aware of.

I should treat this a little more seriously. Do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be left unregulated? --Bob

Let's do a list

Water vapor the major greenhouse gas - unregulated
C02 the small human induced contribution to a very small percentage of co2 naturally occurring in the atmosphere - unregulated

Methane ok with me to regulate that, but good luck with that.

Bob where I'm coming from is, CO2 is an essential trace gas. I believe most of the so called science on human induced global warming is pure and simple bullshit based on unreliable computer models and bad statistics. And energy makes our lives and lifestyle possible.

And what is the right temperature for the planet?

gsabc wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be left unregulated? --Bob

Don't know how it can realistically be done. There's an awful lot of CO2 released just from breathing and burning fuel (and that includes anything combustible, like wood). You'd have to convert a huge fraction of industry over to solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc. That won't happen any time soon. And it doesn't do anything for the non-industrialized countries or portions of countries where burning wood and similar fuels is the only method of heating and cooking for huge numbers of people. None of the heretofore suggested CO2 absorption methods are viable, either, at least the ones I'm aware of.

And tmitsss's post reminded me. The above assumes that the human input of the greenhouse gases is significant and has had a significant impact on the global environment. I'm still not convinced that most if not all of the temperature increases which have been claimed (and there are some doubts as to whether those are real or accurately measured) aren't entirely natural events that humanity doesn't and can't affect.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

I should treat this a little more seriously. Do you believe that greenhouse gas emissions should be left unregulated? --Bob

Let's do a list

Water vapor the major greenhouse gas - unregulated
C02 the small human induced contribution to a very small percentage of co2 naturally occurring in the atmosphere - unregulated

Methane ok with me to regulate that, but good luck with that.

Bob where I'm coming from is, CO2 is an essential trace gas. I believe most of the so called science on human induced global warming is pure and simple bullshit based on unreliable computer models and bad statistics. And energy makes our lives and lifestyle possible.

And what is the right temperature for the planet?

Please just be careful about one point. The actual science on human induced global warming is solid. A Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given for it, long before the rest of the world bought into the global warming arguments of Al Gore and others. Anthropogenic sources can and do contribute to a thinning of the ozone layer, which logically (but not necessarily definitively) leads to an increase in global temperatures via a greenhouse effect.

The BS you refer to in re computer models and bad statistics is a result of some concerned scientists trying to project the future effects of global warming -- always dicey, especially when you have as little historical data as we do. The reason that even reasonable people in this country and elsewhere are willing to at least listen to it is that the stakes are so high if the alarmists are right.

Don't get me wrong -- Al Gore is still just a windbag mouthing platitudes that someone has fed him, and most of the "science" on global warming consequences is tentative at best. But at the risk of destroying my own argument, I'll make the joke:

The fundamentals of global climate change science are sound.

. The actual science on human induced global warming is solid. A Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given for it, long before the rest of the world bought into the global warming arguments of Al Gore and others.

Mr. K if there was a Nobel prize in Chemistry for proof of human induced global warming I missed I and you have a chance to teach me something.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

. The actual science on human induced global warming is solid. A Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given for it, long before the rest of the world bought into the global warming arguments of Al Gore and others.

Mr. K if there was a Nobel prize in Chemistry for proof of human induced global warming I missed I and you have a chance to teach me something.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chem ... press.html

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

. The actual science on human induced global warming is solid. A Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given for it, long before the rest of the world bought into the global warming arguments of Al Gore and others.

Mr. K if there was a Nobel prize in Chemistry for proof of human induced global warming I missed I and you have a chance to teach me something.

Confessor's got the right link. Even the most vocal GW skeptics I know of don't deny that Freon and other propellants contribute to a thinning of the ozone layer. Some of them argue that that thinning has a minimal effect if any on global mean temperature, but it just makes too much sense to me to just dismiss it -- Occam's Razor, and all that.

I didn't fight my way thru the link you provided above, but if it's what I think it is, Obama's environmental advisor has fallen into the same trap that many non-scientists do. It's kind of the same philosophy I struggle with when I try to negotiate with a new or used car salesman. They always want to focus on either the trade-in value or the sticker price. I'm only interested in the differential between the two. Rising CO2 levels are not necessarily a problem. It's rising levels in combination with falling ways for Earth to remove CO2 and replace it with O2.

mrkelley23 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

. The actual science on human induced global warming is solid. A Nobel Prize for Chemistry was given for it, long before the rest of the world bought into the global warming arguments of Al Gore and others.

Mr. K if there was a Nobel prize in Chemistry for proof of human induced global warming I missed I and you have a chance to teach me something.

Confessor's got the right link. Even the most vocal GW skeptics I know of don't deny that Freon and other propellants contribute to a thinning of the ozone layer. Some of them argue that that thinning has a minimal effect if any on global mean temperature, but it just makes too much sense to me to just dismiss it -- Occam's Razor, and all that.

I didn't fight my way thru the link you provided above, but if it's what I think it is, Obama's environmental advisor has fallen into the same trap that many non-scientists do. It's kind of the same philosophy I struggle with when I try to negotiate with a new or used car salesman. They always want to focus on either the trade-in value or the sticker price. I'm only interested in the differential between the two. Rising CO2 levels are not necessarily a problem. It's rising levels in combination with falling ways for Earth to remove CO2 and replace it with O2.

The issue, though, is the greenhouse gases and controlling them. Humanity may have damaged the ozone layer, and that may indeed be causing global warming. We've removed the Freons and similar chemicals in an effort to allow the damage to self-repair. However, we've now switched gears to look at an area that, to me, has not been proven to have a significant effect on global warming and trying to control that. I don't see the CO2 issue as "piling on" and adding to the ozone issues.

Lots of confusion in this thread.

tmitsss is confused about the differing roles of water and co2 as greenhouse gases. It's true that water vapor contributes more to natural greenhouse warming than co2 (roughly 3-5 times more), but its role is as part of a feedback mechanism with temperature, not a forcing mechanism which can be controlled. Due to the vast amount of liquid water on the Earth's surface, water vapor in the atmosphere is in a constant dynamic equlibrium with the oceans that keeps the amount of water vapor (globally averaged - obviously local amounts change with local weather patterns) constant as long as the global average temperature stays the same. This equilibrium is very fast, so that even if we somehow instantly doubled the amount of atmospheric water vapor, it would return to normal within weeks (the extra water going into the ocean where it presumably would have to come from in the first place). There's nothing we can possibly do, short of changing the global temperature by putting other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, to change the amount of water in the atmosphere. (Since vapor pressure rises with temperature, global warming will produce more water vapor, which will in turn cause more warming - a positive feedback mechanism). So there would truly be no point in regulating water "emissions".

Co2 is a different story. Since there is no large supply of dry ice in constant equlibrium with the co2 in the atmosphere, there is no fast dynamic equilbrium involving co2. If we instantly doubled atmospheric co2, it would take hundreds of years for the levels to return to normal (assuming no further action on our part). There is a natural equilibrium for co2 as part of the carbon cycle, but it is much, much slower, and we can affect it by burning sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels (burning wood or other biomatter has no effect on this balance because in that case we are just returning the same co2 that was recently removed from the atmosphere by the tree or plant as it grew). So burning fossil fuels is a forcing mechanism for an increased greenhouse effect.

Also, tmitsss is confused about the significance of co2 being a "trace gas" to anthropogenic global warming. Totally irrelevant - if anything, the fact that co2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere makes it that much more possible that we can affect its concentration (about a 35% increase over pre-industrial levels, higher than any concentration measured in the last several hundred thousand years from ice cores, and counting).

I have to say I am profoundly skeptical, based on comments of his I have read here at various times, of tmitsss's competence to judge the quality of the computer models, temperature measurements, or any other scientific work of atmospheric scientists who might just possibly have several orders of magnitude more knowledge of the subject than he appears to have.

He is correct that there has been no Nobel Prize awarded for work on global warming. Rowland, Molina, and Crutzen's work was on stratospheric ozone depletion by CFC's, which, while proven, is really not all that relevant to global warming (Mr. K is wrong on this point). In fact, ozone depletion by itself is believed to be a slightly negative forcing factor (causing net cooling), since ozone is a greenhouse gas and its loss causes decreased greenhouse absorption which more than compensates for increased heating of the Earth's surface by additional uv. (However, CFC's are powerful greenhouse gases themselves, so their presence in the atmosphere even in small amounts is a positive forcing which appears to more than offset the loss of ozone).

To cite a 1995 award for ozone chemistry in a thread on CO2 is a bit of bait and switch. I don't think the predictions about the ozone layer have been born out over time. Water vapor is relevant given the iris effect. An none of this predicts the historical or recent trends in temperature. We're still talking about danger that only exist in computer models. And lets not forget that a Nobel prize was awarded for ice pick lobotomys.

(about a 35% increase over pre-industrial levels, higher than any concentration measured in the last several hundred thousand years from ice cores, and counting).

CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past in times when life on Earth thrived. Plants evolved in times when co2 was higher. Current co2 concentrations are near long term historical lows. Where did all that coal and oil come from?

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:To cite a 1995 award for ozone chemistry in a thread on CO2 is a bit of bait and switch.

I agree, and I noted that the connection is not that significant above, although I don't think bait and switch was the intention.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:I don't think the predictions about the ozone layer have been born out over time.

The chemistry of ozone depletion by CFC's and other chemicals is not seriously disputed by anyone. The once accelerating rate of ozone loss has slowed down gradually, though it is still unpredictable from year to year, and most believe this is a direct response to limits on CFCs, and a shining example of a smart international public policy decision.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Water vapor is relevant given the iris effect.

You might want to explain the iris effect for interested readers. I don't think even Richard Lindzen is as enthusiastic about it as he once was. And no one is saying water is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, just that it can't be the ultimate cause of any observed atmospheric warming.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:An none of this predicts the historical or recent trends in temperature. We're still talking about danger that only exist in computer models.

Not sure what you mean by the first sentence. A rise in temperature over historical and recent timescales (not geologic ones - see below) is predicted by the observed increase in CO2. Unfortunately we can't reproduce the whole atmosphere in a lab, so computer modelling is essential to the predictions, but as I said I don't think you are really qualified to assess the models or tell atmospheric scientists that their work is bullshit.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:And lets not forget that a Nobel prize was awarded for ice pick lobotomys.

Again, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Rowland and Molina, and Crutzen's Nobel Prize was well-deserved.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past in times when life on Earth thrived. Plants evolved in times when co2 was higher. Current co2 concentrations are near long term historical lows. Where did all that coal and oil come from?

It's true that life thrived on Earth in the past, and CO2 then was much higher. I don't dispute the data in the graph below, although determinations of both CO2 concentrations and temperatures from that long ago have very high levels of uncertainty. The graph makes it clear that the carbon in coal and oil dating from the Carboniferous was taken from the gradual decline of CO2 from prior levels.

The important point is the timescale of the graph is in hundreds of millions of years. Life thrived because it had millions of years to adapt to the changes. What's more, on that timescale, there is little connection between CO2 and temperature because CO2 levels are determined by slow geologic processes like weathering of carbon containing rocks, geologic uplift, and volcanism, and temperature is largely determined by variations in the Earth's orbit. The graph is almost totally irrelevant to the argument (you could say it's a bit of a bait and switch itself) about anthropogenic greenhouse warming because the relevant timescale there is hundreds of years, not hundreds of millions.


[/quote]

smilergrogan wrote:The important point is the timescale of the graph is in hundreds of millions of years. Life thrived because it had millions of years to adapt to the changes. What's more, on that timescale, there is little connection between CO2 and temperature because CO2 levels are determined by slow geologic processes like weathering of carbon containing rocks, geologic uplift, and volcanism, and temperature is largely determined by variations in the Earth's orbit. The graph is almost totally irrelevant to the argument (you could say it's a bit of a bait and switch itself) about anthropogenic greenhouse warming because the relevant timescale there is hundreds of years, not hundreds of millions.

You lost me. I'm not saying I disagree. I'm saying I don't follow what you're saying. Would you mind trying again?

Specifically, I'm don't understand what argument flyingmonkeyguy is making, and I don't understand how the final sentence I quoted responds to it. --Bob

If you really want to know what I've been smoking


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/ ... cou_1.html

A rise in temperature over historical and recent timescales (not geologic ones - see below) is predicted by the observed increase in CO2. Unfortunately we can't reproduce the whole atmosphere in a lab, so computer modelling is essential to the predictions, but as I said I don't think you are really qualified to assess the models or tell atmospheric scientists that their work is bullshit.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:And lets not forget that a Nobel prize was awarded for ice pick lobotomys.



Again, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Rowland and Molina, and Crutzen's Nobel Prize was well-deserved.

"A rise in temperature over historical and recent timescales (not geologic ones - see below) is predicted by the observed increase in CO2. "

I call you on that, it is not true, if you are saying that the historical change in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age can only be explained by the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. So define for me what you mean by historical and recent time scales. By historical do you mean since the Medieval Warm Period, by recent do you mean since 1998?

"Life thrived because it had millions of years to adapt to the changes"

Then why do plant nurseries pump CO2 levels up to 1000 ppm to make plants thrive in real greenhouses? (you will acknowledge that the "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer and has no application to what we know as greenhouses)


"Again, I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Rowland and Molina, and Crutzen's Nobel Prize was well-deserved."

Actually, only time will tell on that. It may be excellent chemistry but its application the the real world has yet to be established. An it has very little to do with global warming. You can't tell me when the ozone hole first appeared, as it was there the first time anyone looked.

"but as I said I don't think you are really qualified to assess the models or tell atmospheric scientists that their work is bullshit."

But of course I do think I can and will do that, basing my opinion on the competing ideas of those who are competent to do and evaluate science. And I believe that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. My interest in this began when someone tried to tell me the Little Ice Age never happened.

The science behind the Ozone Hole continues even after the Nobel prize

New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month

This is going to happen no matter what- even if John "Cap and Trade" McCain is elected.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

"I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollan about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector.

Anyone who wants me to stop farting can bite me.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:The science behind the Ozone Hole continues even after the Nobel prize

New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month

This year’s Antarctic ozone hole is 5th biggest

From NASA News

This is considered a “moderately large” ozone hole, according to NASA atmospheric scientist, Paul Newman. And while this year’s ozone hole is the fifth largest on record, the amount of ozone depleting substances have decreased about 3.8% from peak levels in 2000. The largest ozone hole ever recorded occurred in 2006, at a size of 10.6 million square miles.