Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 Next
Comments 107651 to 107700:
-
Riccardo at 00:07 AM on 6 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
"Supreme" Court. Does this word tell you something, chriscanaris?Moderator Response: Please, everybody, no more on the Supreme Court. -
Riccardo at 00:03 AM on 6 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
CBDunkerson, 2+ years old ice is the green area and it's still decreasing after 2007. What strikes me is the huge amount of >2 years ice that melted away this summer, continuing the decrease started in 2007. And, according to NSIDC, the oldest sea ice virtually disappeared. -
Doug Bostrom at 23:59 PM on 5 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
CBD, I was looking at the bit of the graph where the 1-2YO (blue slice) ice nearly vanished; I think I didn't make myself clear. What I find striking is how nearly constant that constituent has been over the time span of the graph, only to go through the sharp drop in '07 leading to '08. Smacks of something changing a lot, quickly. -
JMurphy at 23:49 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
chriscanaris wrote : "I could think of far better substitutes for the Supreme Court. Robust and honest debate conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. Practical actions such as not stuffing my mail box each day with a mass of advertising which goes straight into recycling thus saving a few forests - good carbon sinks. Walking or cycling to and from work." Where would such a debate take place ? Why should firms suffer the loss of income gained from that advertising ? Where are they going to get the replacement income from ? How many people actually recycle that advertising ? What is a "good carbon sink" and where might they be put ? What about those who can't walk or cycle to work ? -
Doug Bostrom at 23:46 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Oops, I'm in nearly complete disagreement with you, Chris, in particular with your speculation on my comfort with and commitment to our system of government. Presumably you're upset with my employment of the word "happily." It sounds as though you've misconstrued my happiness, or I communicated it poorly. Serves me right for daring to use such an emotional adjective, eh? Also, you don't agree with me that courts can't legislate physics. I didn't say that, and in any case courts don't legislate. As you've volunteered to speculate on my personality, I'll offer in return that your writing is better when it does not sound so eager. Getting back to the matter at hand, your reply was arranged around abstract politics largely to the exclusion of the facts being discussed in this thread. If you want to continue down that path here I won't be able to follow you. Have at it if you must. -
CBDunkerson at 23:46 PM on 5 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
PIOMAS also updated... September 2010 average ice volume of 4,000 km^3. Which is way down from the previous record low of 5,800 km^3 in September 2009. Obviously if that rate continued the ice would all be gone within three years. Even the average rate over the past ten years has been -1000 km^3 per year, so four more years at that rate. So yeah, Maslowski's projection (2016 +/- 3 years to nearly ice free) is looking pretty good. Indeed, these numbers suggest it was conservative. However, NSIDC is still saying 20 to 30 years... presumably based on the extent trend, which is much less pronounced than the volume trend. We'll know within a couple of years which is going to be the ultimate determinant. My money is on volume. Doug, actually as I read the chart the 2+ year ice percentage increased slightly in 2007. The first sharp dip shown is for Sept 2008, then a smaller one for Sept 2009, and now a third even smaller dip for Sept 2010. This is consistent with ice volume having declined since 2007 while extent increased slightly. The fact that these are percentages also changes how we should look at them somewhat... 55% of the 4.3 September 2007 extent is still more than 15% of the 4.8 September 2010 extent, but not as much more as the percentages alone suggest. -
Ned at 23:43 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
chriscanaris tries to find fault with the US Supreme Court's decision that yes, the US EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. While I normally find his comments enlightening and thought-provoking, this one seems to be a bit of an exception. Suggesting that the Court's clearly objectionable 1857 Dredd Scott decision somehow casts doubt on its judgment in the current case would seem to be the perfect example of argumentum ad hominem. In fact, it's even worse than the normal employment of ad hominem insofar as the individuals on the current USSC had nothing to do with the Dredd Scott decision. It's also worth considering that, if you look at US history, the constituency whose interests Taney et al. were promoting (conservative southern whites) is the same core constituency that the opponents of emissions regulation are serving. A map of opposition to government meddling in slavery in 1857 would look a lot like a map of opposition to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 (I'm not trying to suggest that "AGW skeptics" are somehow equivalent to plantation owners, merely pointing out how spectacularly poor chriscanaris's analogy is.) -
RSVP at 23:42 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
CBDunkerson #74 "An increase in human population increases the amount of carbon cycling through humans... but not the total amount of carbon in active circulation." This is correct. Therefore, had alterative non-combustion forms of energy been harnessed for the entire Industrial Revolution (if this were even possible), and if the population somehow still grew as it did, then there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere since it would have been sequestered by the growth pattern, and I assume the world would be cooler according to AGW. With a cooling world, farming would be hampered some and therefore less prone to growth. Again, its very hard to imagine how heavy industries could have emerged historically without fossil fuels (nearly impossible even with current technologies, which of course did not exist). At any rate, my point was that fossil fuels have primed the system, and the carbon is out there. Not only "out there", but as hard as it may be to accept, and quite ironic, our own bodies contain this "anthropogenic" carbon.Moderator Response: Please discuss the role of human metabolism in Earth's climate at the "Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?" thread. -
JMurphy at 23:42 PM on 5 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
doug_bostrom wrote : "JMurphy JohnD's email quote appears to been sourced here. It's worth reading the whole thing, a familiar refrain as we've yet again been treated to a rhetorically expedient selection. There's some discussion here further indicating things were not as simple as they've been portrayed." Ah, so, as usual, what johnd leaves out is more important than what he writes ! Interesting as to how the models are all recognised as providing output that cannot be truly trusted in advance, and that some are better than others at different times, predictions, etc. What a surprise...not, and what a surprise that a so-called skeptic would cherry-pick...not ! It's also interesting to remember that the source you gave was also involved in claims (last year ?) that 'Japanese scientists disbelieve AGW' - it all went back to a similar email exchange at JAMSTEC that involved a group of people in discussion. Amazingly, the words then were cherry-picked to determine a belief very different than what was actually contained in the whole exchange. Well done for going to the trouble to find the original - something one rarely gets from so-called skeptics, unsurprisingly. -
muoncounter at 23:42 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
#70:"Breathing does increase CO2 levels in direct proportion to the increase in population. " That is provably false. US population increased in 2009, yet CO2 emissions decreased. See the breathing thread for a reference. -
chris1204 at 23:20 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Doug, the Court in Dredd Scott looked at what seemed equally mundane questions to many at the time in question - did it have the requisite jurisdiction, could citizens be deprived of their property, and the like. I agree with you 100% that a Court can't legislate on the laws of physics. I'm sure you're every bit as unhappy as I am about Cuccinelli's efforts. However, you seem to be happy to involve the Courts when you happen to agree with a specific outcome. I could think of far better substitutes for the Supreme Court. Robust and honest debate conducted in a spirit of mutual respect. Practical actions such as not stuffing my mail box each day with a mass of advertising which goes straight into recycling thus saving a few forests - good carbon sinks. Walking or cycling to and from work. I'm sure you could come up with a lengthy list of other useful interventions which carry minimal cost but which if everyone did them would have substantial impacts. -
Daniel Bailey at 23:06 PM on 5 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Re: Agnostic (35) The melt-curve needed to hit 1+ meter of SLR by 2050 will also deliver 3+ by 2100. Not saying it will happen, or not. Just pointing out the obvious. BTW, that jibes with Hansen's latest (catastrophic instabilities in the PIG, already underway, triggers a 5+ meter SLR deglaciation of the WAIS by 2100). If I wasn't half-asleep (and lazy) right now I'd link it. Google Hansen 2008. Think that's it. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 22:58 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Chris in this case we're not looking at an issue freighted with mutating, evolving attitudes to race relations, etc., deep questions of ethics or morality. The Supreme Court was confronted with facts of science posed against facts of existing law and regulation; the Court was asked to determine if the matter of C02 was within the purview of the Clean Air Act. It was a pretty mundane decision compared to Brown vs. Board of Education etc. Regarding the sometimes spotty record of the Supreme Court, perfect it isn't but there's no substitute, it's the destination for questions turning on what folks see as fine points of law. We can expect for those unhappy with the disposition of facts to mount an effort to change those facts by changing the law. They may well be able to change the facts of the law, the real trouble is they cannot legislate physics. -
Daniel Bailey at 22:57 PM on 5 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
If 2011 sees the summer development of the Arctic DiPole, strong possibility of open water at the pole by melt season's end. Had there been favorable weather in July it could have happened this year. Hope the pole cams float. Maslowski's looking pretty good, too. The Yooper -
Doug Bostrom at 22:45 PM on 5 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
So, we'll see the final, really wild seasonal variations when/if that 1-2 year old ice is gone. What's interesting is that it's held fairly steady overall during the period shown, but was nearly obliterated in the famous '07 slice. I suppose that feature may show as an early harbinger once the data is extended, an early wiggle toward the final outcome. I must say, Serreze's prognostications look to be right on track. -
chris1204 at 22:41 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
I detect a small problem in turning to the US Supreme Court as an arbiter on these issues. The Court has a chequered record: See the Dredd Scott decision, which had momentous consequences. Courts deal with the law but don't do a very good job of science and morality. -
CBDunkerson at 22:25 PM on 5 October 2010Arctic sea ice... take 2
There is some updated information, consistent with the PIOMAS results in the article, on Arctic sea ice age from the NSIDC; "At the end of the summer 2010, under 15% of the ice remaining the Arctic was more than two years old, compared to 50 to 60% during the 1980s. There is virtually none of the oldest (at least five years old) ice remaining in the Arctic (less than 60,000 square kilometers [23,000 square miles] compared to 2 million square kilometers [722,000 square miles] during the 1980s)."
-
CBDunkerson at 22:02 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #70: "Breathing does increase CO2 levels in direct proportion to the increase in population." An increase in human population increases the amount of carbon cycling through humans... but not the total amount of carbon in active circulation. It can't. There is no possible way that we could exhale more carbon than we take in... unless you are arguing that human beings spontaneously generate carbon atoms. Indeed, since our bodies are partially composed of carbon and most humans bury their dead, living humans are a carbon sink on the decadal scale and dead humans a carbon sink on the millenial scale. So far as our bodies alone are concerned humans are a net carbon sink. Thus, no... the fact that excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (and thus carbonic acid in the oceans) constitute pollution (i.e. are harmful to the environment) does not mean that the EPA is going to be able to order executions. Setting aside the sheer insanity of the claim... it simply wouldn't accomplish anything. It is human industry which is causing rising atmospheric CO2 levels... digging up carbon which has been stored away in fossil fuels for millions of years and reintroducing it to active circulation. -
nealjking at 21:43 PM on 5 October 2010Positive feedback means runaway warming
17, hadfield: The statement you are trying to promote is different from what I am trying to do. Sorry. -
Doug Bostrom at 20:43 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Exactly, RSVP, it's a global problem, eyes are on the U.S. to show a serious willingness to get a grip on this problem, a hurdle for international accord. Our current batch of Senators for various reasons found themselves unable to follow the lead of the President and House and actually finish a specific response to C02 as a unique policy challenge. Happily, a little over 35 years ago a different President and Congress promulgated legislation that addresses the issue, as the EPA has proposed and the Supreme Court has affirmed. The EPA reflects durable wisdom and foresight encapsulated in law. It all has quite a bit to do with politics. We're not supposed to talk about politics here, but this particular thread of discussion is about policy, and policy in the United States is the sausage emerging from legislative politics. By the way, without having read the EPA's justification for tackling C02 there's no way anybody's going to produce usefully informed specific comment on this. Insightful generalities about the boundaries of the term "pollution," maybe, productive criticism of the EPA, no. -
adelady at 20:36 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Breathing does increase CO2 in direct proportion to the population. And every mammal sequesters some carbon in the carbon-based life form tissues. It's a circular argument. Either we eat carbon containing life forms and release CO2 rather than allowing them just to die, decay and release CO2. Or parts of some plants sequester more CO2 in their structures because we don't harvest them as an alternative to us eating some plant parts and sequestering carbon in our bodies. -
alan_marshall at 20:28 PM on 5 October 2010What constitutes 'safe' global warming?
Thanks John for the timely warning. A temperature rise of 2 degrees is definitely not safe, at least not in the long term. Sea-level rise is the elephant in the room. The IPCC projections of less than one metre are based mostly on thermal expansion of the ocean, as the rate of breakup of the ice sheets is very difficult to model. Hansen has stated that “Proxy measures of CO2 amount and climate simulations consistent with empirical data on climate sensitivity both indicate that atmospheric CO2 amount when an ice sheet first formed on Antarctica (34–35 million years before present) was probably only 400–600 ppm" (Hansen and Sato, 2007b). Elsewhere he writes “equilibrium sea level rise for today’s 385 ppm CO2 (2008) is at least several meters, judging from paleoclimate history" If that is so then the CO2 concentration we are tracking to reach in this century is sufficient to eventually melt most of the ice in Greenland and West Antarctica. (East Antarctica may be somewhat safer as the ice sheet has increased the altitude.) The only consolation in this grim scenario is that the thermal inertia of the ice sheets is apparently longer than the thermal inertia of the upper layers of the ocean. In my post on this site titled "Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect", I estimated 40 years as the time for global warming, responding to a step increase in forcing, to reach 1 – 1/e = 63.2% of its final equilibrium value. The sea level rise for the last interglacial, which John quotes as 6.6 to 9.4 metres higher than current sea level, is the equilibrium sea level rise. I expect a 2 degree warming will produce a rise of 2 or more metres by the end of this century, with the remainder being reached some centuries later. What we do know from paleoclimate history is that if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most of the world's great cities will eventually be inundated. That is why the task facing mankind is not just to quickly move to a zero carbon economy. We will also need to extract the bulk of the CO2 emitted from 1750 up till now. That will require either carbon sequestration on an industrial scale, or geo-engineering. Both these solutions will involve decisions we make as a species, not as competing peoples. If sufficient CO2 can be removed this century, we can limit the sea level rise even if global warming temporarily reaches 2+ degrees. I live on the island of Tasmania. The first inhabitants of the island arrived during the last ice age. They did not arrive by boat. They were able to walk across 300 km of sea floor because the sea level was 120 metres lower than it is today. I wish our politicians could comprehend that as they push temperatures and sea level in the other direction! -
CBDunkerson at 20:02 PM on 5 October 2010An underwater hockey stick
Joe Blog #75: You say that you have the data showing that the surface temp anomaly is less than the ~400 m ocean temp anomaly for the Gulf of St. Lawrence... please show it. Given that most of the area around the North Pole has warmed more than 3 C I doubt your claim is correct. On your theory that ocean temperature anomalies in the area are more due to currents than warming directly at that location I might normally agree with you (and point out that global warming is... global, and thus would also have warmed the waters carried in by the current), but... this is the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is blocked by several land masses which logically should prevent any major ocean currents from running through the area. That said... if an ocean current IS running through the Gulf it would have to be an offshoot of the Labrador current which comes down from the Arctic and hugs the coast all along the possible entrances to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Arctic is, as noted above, the region which has experienced the greatest temperature anomalies due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. So even if you are right about the water temperature anomaly being due to currents... it's right back to AGW again. -
RSVP at 19:58 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
As the level of CO2 is planetary, this issue at any rate can only be dealt with seriously via international accords. -
CBDunkerson at 19:43 PM on 5 October 2010Billions of Blow Dryers: Some Missing Heat Returns to Haunt Us
There is a document explaining the changes shown in Charlie A's #75 at the NODC URL he provides. The top level summary from that document is; "1. Changes due to data additions and data quality control, both at NODC and by originators. Substantial quality control has been carried out by the Argo community on the profiling floats, mainly to correct pressure offsets. A substantial amount of data for recent years has been added to the analysis. 2. Changes due to switch of our base climatology. The website and 2009 paper used an interim (L09) climatology (between WOA05 and WOA09) incorporating XBT corrections and a mean of five decadal climatologies to remove temporal bias. These changes were formally completed with additional data and quality control in WOA09. 3. Changes due to revised XBT bias calculations. With additional XBT and CTD data, the bias calculations were improved. This is an ongoing process, but as we receive less new data from earlier time periods, this recalculation will mostly affect more recent years." These show how many calculations and assumptions go into the OHC estimates and thus further highlight why it is so ridiculous to point to a five year 'trend' in these values as evidence of anything. We can tell that the long term trend is increasing, but making claims based on fine detail is just irresponsible. Note that the new updates don't include any attempt to factor in the deep ocean warming identified by Purkey & Johnson in the paper discussed above. So the NEW results are still not 'perfect'... as also evidenced by the comments about the need for further corrections in the explanation of the changes. -
RSVP at 19:43 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
CBDunkerson #69: You really can't do this math? Seriously? Petrolium has placed the carbon equilibrium as sequestered in all living things (including man) beyond its "natural" origin. Breathing does increase CO2 levels in direct proportion to the increase in population. -
CBDunkerson at 19:33 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
RSVP #68: You really can't do this math? Seriously? Prior article: Breathing does not increase atmospheric CO2 levels because all carbon exhaled into the atmosphere came FROM the atmosphere in the first place. Basically, the human body recycles CO2. Current article: Something becomes a pollutant when the level of it in the environment increases to the point where it becomes harmful. Ergo... breathing is not causing CO2 to become a pollutant and there is no reason to regulate it... despite obnoxious fear mongering, on the level of 'death panels', nonsense to the contrary. -
JMurphy at 19:23 PM on 5 October 2010We're heading into an ice age
Tom Loeber, there was no "widespread cold in the northern hemisphere over the last couple of years", just as there has been no "widespread record cold" over the southern hemisphere more recently. You would save yourself a lot of bother if you look into the facts and figures of these situations, rather than rely on exaggerated and over-the-top headlines, especially those from the likes of ICECAP.COM. -
johnd at 19:02 PM on 5 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
scaddenp at 10:40 AM, I'm not sure what you are getting at, or where you are coming from for that matter. Please explain. -
Baz at 18:21 PM on 5 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
gallopingcamel. Ah, I'm glad you said that! There are indeed sharp upturns in temp throughout the record, and all were natural. You're right, we're told that this time, this time, it is man-made (and we have a suitable cause). What intruiges me when I look at the graph of modern temps is indeed THAT sharp uptick. Would you agree that it would fit better if the temp slowly rose up, rather than it being quite sharp? -
adelady at 17:26 PM on 5 October 2010It's not bad
This PNAS abstract shows decreasing rice yields under higher night time temperatures if you're looking for non greenhouse based work on (dis)advantages of higher CO2 on crop growth. -
RSVP at 17:21 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
CoalGeologist #65 "The U.S. Supreme Court, which CORRECTLY (beyond question) identified CO2 as a pollutant,..." Just a few articles back, "Does breathing contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere?", it was being said that it was OK to breathe, (and I might add, if this is, it should be OK to burn wood as well). Meanwhile, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life, (i.e., "nor shall any State deprive any person of life...")... yet you go on to say that the Supreme Court... "merely gave the EPA the authority to regulate its discharge " Considering the possibilities, (and the level of misinformation going around), "merely" sounds like a gross understatement. And perhaps the real problem stems from a need to use a different word. Pollution is the wrong word. "Surplus" might be better. -
dana1981 at 16:27 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
For those arguing that the benefits of increased CO2 will outweigh the negatives, or that the negatives aren't significant, or what have you, I recommend actually reading the 'How Much Warming is Dangerous?' section of the article and the links it references. -
Marcus at 16:16 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Here are a couple of very good examples of how something that is good in very small quantities is actually *harmful* in larger quantities. Digitalis is a toxin which, in very small quantities, can prevent heart-attacks yet, in higher concentrations, can lead to a very swift death. Similarly Botulinus Toxin (aka Botox) can be used to reduce the visible signs of aging but-in large enough quantities-can lead to extreme illness & even death. I see CO2 & the like in a very similar light. Its worth noting though that, even if CO2 were considered utterly benign-at all quantities-the other by-products of burning fossil fuels are sufficiently toxic to warrant that we use far less of them. Burning petrol generates particulate emissions & benzene-both extremely hazardous to health, & burning coal generates particulate emissions, cadmium & mercury (amongst a host of other toxic by-products). Not exactly good for our health! -
Doug Bostrom at 15:24 PM on 5 October 2010NASA-GISS: July 2010-- What global warming looks like
Another statistical way of looking things:
From CapitalClimate
-
CoalGeologist at 15:07 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Thingadonta @#50: There are several interrelated sets of issues regarding climate change that tend to become muddled in the skeptical debate, in particular: 1) Is the climate changing, and at what rate?, 2) What is causing this change?, 3) How might climate continue to change in the future, particularly if nothing is done to limit human impact? 4) What is the likely impact of [anthropogenic] climate change on human civilization as well as on natural ecosystems?, and finally 5) What can or should we do, if anything, to reduce the impact of anthropogenic climate change? The first four questions fall ostensibly within the realm of science, while the last (#5) falls within the realm of values, priorities, and politics--perhaps even religion. Unfortunately, I believe that a lot of "skeptics" allow their opinions regarding #5 to influence their judgment regarding #'s 1 through 4... and that pertains both to those who would wish to reduce human impact to as close to zero as possible, and those who, like Rhett Butler in regards to Scarlett O'Hara, frankly don't .....er... care. The U.S. Supreme Court, which CORRECTLY (beyond question) identified CO2 as a pollutant, merely gave the EPA the authority to regulate its discharge into the atmosphere. The Court did not indicate what should be done to limit CO2 emissions... but only that it falls under the EPA's authority. Trade-offs need to be weighed in any such circumstances. We face a lot of serious questions regarding our priorities for the future. Although I'm by no means sure what can or should be done regarding CO2, there is one thing I do feel sure of... that 7+ billion of us can't all simultaneously do whatever the hell we want, and not affect everyone else. We need to consider the consequences of our actions--or inaction, as the case may be--as opposed to denying that such consequences are real. In the meantime, libertarians should give serious consideration to finding another planet to live on. -
scaddenp at 14:38 PM on 5 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
"The big difference is that this time the upturn could be caused by humanity's fondness for burning growing quantities of fossil fuel." - that and the lack of the forcings that dictated such change in the past. If comparing past 750,000 make sure you put instrumental record on same scale so you get a real understanding of "sharp". Though fortunately current change does not appear to be as rapid as NH suffered in Younger Dryas and Heinrich events that occur when coming out a glaciation. -
scaddenp at 14:33 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
GC - well I am not going to comment on an US political matter. As to ice ages, perhaps comment on CO2 lags temperature (after reviewing argument)? -
Doug Bostrom at 14:30 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
GC, you're typically a pretty articulate fellow. I've got to say, there's a wide gulf of understanding here based on your remark that the EPA is behaving ludicrously by taking up C02 as a pollutant; a single adjective doesn't begin to explain your perspective. The trouble is, "ludicrous" is what's on offer, versus this: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF) (52 pp, 308K) Technical Support Document for the Findings (PDF) (210 pp, 2.5MB) Beyond its immediate findings, EPA bent over backwards to entertain a vast number of comments and criticisms. I'm willing to bet the word "ludicrous" may be found in the compilation of this interaction but more to the point, lots of people devoted more effort than launching a single adjective to attacking the regulation of C02 by EPA, only to be found less than compelling. There are 11 volumes of comments and responses in all, but the key discussions from the perspective of vistors to this site are probably mostly to be found here: Volume 1: General Approach to the Science and Other Technical Issues Volume 2: Validity of Observed and Measured Data Volume 3: Attribution of Observed Climate Change Volume 4: Validity of Future Projections Volume 9: Endangerment Finding The thing is, after all of the disparagement about vague and nonspecific bureaucrats is brushed away as silly irrelevancy, we're left with the fact that EPA actually has a track record of successfully dealing with a range of pollution issues at various scales from relatively miniscule to quite huge. EPA's got a huge reservoir of expertise to tap into, they've been mobilized to look at this C02 challenge and you can see the results above. Against that, a single adjective? -
Phila at 14:29 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
It is very disappointing to find the (mostly) sane denizens of this blog going along with what amounts to a denial of 9th grade science. "9th grade science" from which decade? Science does evolve, you know. If you want us to understand why classifying CO2 as a pollutant is "ludicrous," you need to present an actual argument, and back it up with evidence. -
gallopingcamel at 14:26 PM on 5 October 2010Uncertain Times at the Royal Society?
Baz, (#94), you ask: "What else could have caused a fairly-sharp upturn in temps?" That is a fair question but have you considered the fact that sharp upturns and downturns are the norm in "Climate Change". If you doubt me take a look at the ice core records that go back over 750,000 years. It is true that we are experiencing a "sharp upturn" but it is not unprecedented. The big difference is that this time the upturn could be caused by humanity's fondness for burning growing quantities of fossil fuel. -
archiesteel at 14:16 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
@GC: CO2 is a pollutant, because too much of it is harmful to us. That point has been made to you over and over again, and you have yet to offer a convincing counter-argument. This is how debating works, by the way. You can't just restate your original position, or claim that everyone but you would fail 9th grade science, and expect to convince others that you are right. -
Phila at 14:13 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Thingadonta: Using the argument that everything that is 'bad' for the envrionment is no good would mean no houses (cuts down habitat), no roads, no mines, no anything. The only people I've ever seen using this argument are "skeptics" who'd rather build strawmen than address their opponents' objections in good faith. C02 obviously is necessay for life, but too much might not be good. But there is a danger in giving bureacratic agencies legislation which classifies something as a 'pollutant' which is also necassary for society to function. I'm sure we're supposed to be frightened by the word "bureaucratic," but the fact is, we routinely put bureaucracies in charge of serious and dangerous things, from epidemic disease to military forces to nuclear weapons. If AGW is half the threat that mainstream, peer-reviewed science says it is, then the legislation you decry is really the only reasonable response to it. To imagine otherwise is childish, IMO. It is not about whther or not something is harmless, but whether the 'harm' outweighs the benefits, in other words, is a certain amount of harm acceptable, or can the hamr be reduced to an acceptable level? Acceptable to whom? Many of the people who will suffer most from the effects of AGW have little or no voice in this debate. Note, also, that to the extent that reducing harm is possible, it'll probably be accomplished by people who've accepted the scope of the problem, instead of sticking their heads in the sand (i.e., by the "greens" and "bureaucrats" who worry you so much). -
Daniel Bailey at 14:12 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
Re: gallopingcamel One could also posit the lack of understandings of ice ages as a denial of 9th grade science as well. But that would also be wrong. ;) The Yooper -
gallopingcamel at 14:01 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
scaddenp (#40), Yes, I am still having trouble understanding ice ages but there are other threads for that. This thread does not condemn the ludicrous position taken by the EPA with regard to naming CO2 as a "pollutant". It is very disappointing to find the (mostly) sane denizens of this blog going along with what amounts to a denial of 9th grade science. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:59 PM on 5 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: doug_bostrom (76) Thanks, Doug. The graph, not found in the paper (nor can I locate it on the GISP2 website), must be what he was referring to. The graph hardly has the resolution to make any claims about the Central Greenland location of the core during the LIA or the MWP, let alone any further extrapolation outside that area. Maybe I can find it on Alley's website. Re: scaddenp (77) Nice hauling out the secret weapon! The Yooper -
scaddenp at 13:47 PM on 5 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
GC - I am extremely puzzled by your summary of what the paper purports to show. For starters perhaps, how is ice core supposed to show us anything at all about last 100 years? How about this graphic then? Of course you could write to Richard Alley and ask his opinion of your interpretation. -
CBW at 13:45 PM on 5 October 2010Carbon Dioxide - Everyone's Favorite Pollutant
thingadonta @50, you are creating a bit of a straw man. Calling something a "pollutant" is not the same thing as saying that all sources of the thing must be completely eradicated. We live every day with pollutants, and society must constantly evaluate the costs of those pollutants against the benefits of the activities that generate them. Climate (and other) science is trying to get a handle on the costs of CO2 emissions, not the benefits. Human society as a whole will bear those costs, regardless of anyone's arguments for or against global warming. Without an accurate understanding of the costs, there is no way for society to make rational decisions on cost versus benefits. That is why the people intent on obscuring the truth are doing such a disservice to mankind. -
Doug Bostrom at 13:31 PM on 5 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
I just have a thing about trying to supply links for complete articles instead of abstracts, Daniel. No way can I read 'em all, heh! I suspect GC's conclusions are largely based on the graph found at the URL he supplied but GC can say better. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:29 PM on 5 October 2010Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
Re: doug_bostrom (74) Thanks, Doug. I took the time to read it first...to find you beat me in posting the actual link. Re: gallopingcamel (73) Are we reading the same paper? Alley's 2000 paper deals with the termination of the Younger Dryas event, circa 11,500 BP...nowhere in the paper is a discussion of the LIA, the MWP or temperatures over the last 10,000 years. Please give us the actual source(s) for your point 1-5 claims. The Yooper
Prev 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 Next
