All I need is the air that I breathe …
posted at 11:33 am on February 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Sources within the Obama administration tell its favorite leak recipient that they will have the EPA start to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in the next few months. The decision will hit the energy and transportation sectors at a time when both will be needed for an economic recovery. Get ready for even more nationalization:
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.
The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.
Well, you have to love how the New York Times has decided to become the spin masters of the Obama administration. Take a look at the second paragraph of the article, in which John Broder breathlessly informs us that regulating carbon dioxide could “accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks”. It could do all that, but what Broder doesn’t mention is that it will also rapidly increase energy costs, making it costlier to produce goods and services inside the US while foreign competitors gain an advantage.
How long does it take for Broder to mention the fact that increased regulation and imposition of controls will “significantly increase costs”? Paragraph 15, of 26. He only mentions it in reference to expected opposition from Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), whom Broder helpfully casts as a “champion” of the auto industry. Funny, though, that the New York Times didn’t bother much with describing people as “champions” of this industry when covering the auto-industry bailouts, which will now apparently go to waste, thanks to this new regulatory push that will make both the manufacturing and products of the industry obsolete.
In fact, in the entire 26-paragraph article, only two paragraphs speak at all about the opposition to such an approach. The rest almost fawningly describe the effort in glowing, even heroic tones. It’s quite the piece of propaganda, and I’m certain the Obama administration will bless the NYT with even more scoops like this in the future. It’s far below Broder’s usual standard.
Interestingly, the Most Transparent and Accountable Administration in World History will not ask Congress to pass these new regulations. Getting the People’s Branch involved apparently is too time-consuming and tiresome. Instead, the EPA will just start issuing regulations, and will ask us to trust them to be reasonable. No, I’m not kidding:
She also said that while Mr. Obama supported Congressional action on climate change, he was also committed to using the regulatory authority of the executive branch to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.
Mr. LaBolt said the White House would not interfere with the agency’s decision-making process.
If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Ms. Jackson knows that she would be stepping into a minefield of Congressional and industry opposition and said that she was trying to devise a program that allayed these worries.
Remember all those on the Left that complained about George Bush’s “imperial” approach to the Presidency? Do you suppose they’ll complain about this? Neither do I.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Thanks for the comic relief.
Maybe one day people will evolve from their nature of falling for half-baked theories. It is human nature, after all.
Anyone who still believes in the threat of man-made global warming in 2009 is in rough shape. I can cut people some slack 10, 15 years ago. To believe in it now shows an epic level of ignorance or an equally epic level of malevolence towards humanity. Which category do you fit into?
I will not tolerate this BS anymore when it boils down to eco-assholes who want to curb reproduction, who actually long for a pandemic that will wipe out troublesome humans, who seek to destroy lives and the economy through their pointless regulations.
reaganaut on February 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Nope. If anything the Earth would be slightly cooling if it was only a matter of Milankovich cycles being involved. Instead, it’s dramatically warming.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
“Sensor Drift” results in reports of increasing melting of polar ice, when in fact, the opposite is occurring.
As a result, data showing the increase in polar ice will be ignored until a more suitable data source can be found.
Skandia Recluse on February 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Not even consensus. The despicable left does science by bribery. If that doesn’t work, they move straight to intimidation. “Card check” science of the left. And most of them are mathematical illiterates.
If they were such great modelers of complex systems, they would just model a simpler system, like the S+P500, make billions on that and pay for their own idiotic ideas … which reminds me, how many of the econometric models predicted the current state? Around zero. But they are sure that their long-term climate models are correct … What morons.
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM
This means I will finally be published?! Yipee!
Fantasy. Go & analyze the methodology of this data collection & compilation.
Look at the context of the shrinkage & growing of these things. Take in the WHOLE GLOBAL picture of this stuff.
Look at the ancient climate evidence in the rocks you are sitting upon.
Looking at satellite images & concluding a glacier has ‘lost mass’ is a waste of time.
Context, man. Context.
Badger40 on February 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
S.D., the only thing your link demonstrates is that the sensor problem is being corrected, not that the sea ice has magically reappeared. There’s plenty of data showing the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is quite real and significant:
Polar ice packs
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Only as accurate as the fudge factors they include.
Badger40 on February 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Wikipedia can be as accurate as taking your temperature with a butcher knife.
Context, man. Context.
Badger40 on February 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Pretending there’s some sort of giant conspiracy at work isn’t even denialism, it’s just stupid. Get real.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
You have some reading to do genius.
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Badger40, only you can open your mind. All I can do is point you in the right direction.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Get lost. You contribute nothing but increasing entropy.
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Actually the earth has been cooling for about 10 years.
The late 1900′s saw a period where the sun was more active than it had been is almost 400 years. That’s why it warmed up. Now that the sun is getting less active, it is cooling down.
Combine that with the several decadal oceanic currents, and you can explain about 95% of the warming of the last century.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
There was a one year loss of ice, that was caused by changes in air and water currents. The ice has since returned to normal.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I might add that in recent years, Antarctic sea ice has been setting records for it’s extent.
I read a study this morning that found that glaciers in the interior of Greenland have been getting thicker for the last 30 years.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Just to make a point, last summer was the first year ever in recorded history that both the Northwest Passage (over Canada) and the Northeast Passage (over Russia) were simultaneously open. Plain evidence that the Earth is warming is there in other places as well, if you take the denialist blinders off.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
No one has to pretend. Just listen to the testimony of real live climate scientists who have been threatened with having their funds cut off unless they toe the party line.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
StarFleet Fanboy let me translate that complicated quote into English you can understand.
There was 193,000 square miles MORE polar ice than the data indicated. So they are going to ignore the data source until they can find one that fits their expectations.
Skandia Recluse on February 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Total bull. The historical records have many instances of both of those being open. The most recent was 1922.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Hmm – not true, either. I guess you don’t read history, do you? Else you would know that’s not true.
Vashta.Nerada on February 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Even hints to gradual changes in transportation orders will cost 100′s of thousands of jobs. If Obama has his way, we will gain 2 million jobs and lose 4 million.
seven on February 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Nope:
Yes, the planet has kept warming since 1998
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM
What is it about “Not. At. The. Same. Time.” don’t you understand?
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.
It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?
Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.
The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.
Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.
Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.
Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.
Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.
Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.
Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.
The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.
What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.
Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Would now be a good time to finally seal the borders?
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Y’all are arguing with a boy sitting around in his Captain Kirk jammies.
Patrick S on February 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Man, you really are into pathetic propaganda, aren’t you.
dudlet probably believes the HockeyStick is real science.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Yes, at the same time dudlet.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Good thing that the nations of the world came together to lower the CO2 levels back in 950AD. After all, these thing could never be natural!
Dawnsblood on February 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Y’all are arguing with a boy sitting around in his Captain Kirk jammies.
Patrick S on February 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM
StarFleet Fool, you link to the Climate Progress blog
was debunked by Michael Asher and NASA was forced to re-examine its data. At the same time the NASA scientist who produced that data and the conclusions drawn from that data refused to allow any review of his methodology.
Since then several people at NASA have called for a re-evaluation of NASA’s climate studies.
Skandia Recluse on February 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM
let me get this straight
Co2 is a dangerous gas
So all humans need to now stop breathing.
So obama can claim he stopped gloabal cooling err warming err whatever..
Go suck an EGG..
obamas a frigging moron
jcila on February 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
About the loss of glacial ice now:
World’s Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Sorry, munged the link:
World’s Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
S.R., you’re complaining about a mote while ignoring the rest of the data. Yes, 1998 turned out not to be the warmest year on U.S. record but that fact alone doesn’t negate the evidence of a warming Earth.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Hmm, wrong again. Glaciers in Alaska, California, Norway, Canada and New Zealand are all growing.
Vashta.Nerada on February 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Too funny! Quite puts it in perspective, doesn’t it.
Alana on February 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
.
Sorry, but with only a few exceptions (Norway in particular), glaciers across the globe are in retreat:
Retreat of glaciers since 1850
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Yes….but…
yes..but…….but…but…but…but…but…but
Beavis ain’t here.
Skandia Recluse on February 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifted from it’s cold phase to the warm phase in the middle 70′s.
It shifted back last year.
THe last time the PDO was in it’s warm phase, artic ice reached even lower levels.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I had hoped you might not be as juvenile as the rest here. Oh well. Liked your blog though, as I used to be a over the road trucker myself. Lotsa good memories as well as some not so good ones.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Some are shrinking, some are growing, some aren’t doing much at all.
Many of the ones that are shrinking are shrinking for reason’s having nothing at all to do with global warming. For example, Kilamanjaro’s glacier is shrinking because a drop in precipitation caused by the forests on it’s flanks being cut down.
Regardless, Alaska’s glaciers, which were shrinking, are now growing again.
Anyway, the biggest glaciers of all, Antarctica and Greenland, which together hold about 95% of the world’s ice, are both growing.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
It’s negated by the lack of warming in the satellite data.
It’s negated by the utter lack of quality control in the ground based temperature network.
see wattsupwiththat.com
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Sorry, but that is just not true:
In Greenland, Ice and Instability
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
And what was happening in 1850?
Why, the earth was in the grips of the Little Ice Age.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM
One of these days you won’t quote a propaganda site.
The edges have been accelerating, but the interior is growing. That’s a fact, learn to deal with it.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM
This isn’t about winning or losing an argument, BTW. I could care less about anyone here pretending they’re winning a debate by making fun of my pseudonym. I just do it in hopes that it might help raise awareness of a subject that is important and isn’t just some global conspiracy.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM
So tell us – what ended the last Ice Age, genius?
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Or what ended the Little Ice Age?
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
MarkTheGreat, not all glacial mass is created equal. The mass at the terminus (or bottom) of a glacier is greater than that at the top, and that matters in terms of how fast it melts. Only in Norway is the amount of new snowfall at the top keeping up with the loss of ice to the sea. It isn’t in Greenland though, and there’s a LOT more ice there than in Norway.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I’ll jump in:
Or what made the Sahara into a desert, when it was pretty green just before major civilization there … Uh oh! Man, again! That darned Homo Sapien destroyed the green Sahara!
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Really? Well Obooba is about to ruin our economy based on one side of this argument – the false side – while ignoring the other side.
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Check this out for starters on the cycle of ice ages:
Ice Age Climate Cycles
Sorry I can’t give you a one-sentence summary, but the best I can do is say that they’re primarily due to changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM
So what effect do SUV’s have on terrestrial precession?
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
progressoverpeace, as if there can’t be natural and human-caused changes to the Earth’s environment. The Sahara didn’t emerge because of human activity 10,000 years ago, but the desertification of the Sahel to the south of the Sahara is due to human activity.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM
How do you know? I have a computer model that shows it, as it happened, all due to the evil Homo Sapien – dreaded scourge of the Earth. I ran my model without evil humans and the Sahara would have been a rain forest, by now.
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Ok, so you can’t take a joke, and want to be serious. I can live with that.
You are taking a few decades of data, inconclusive, suspect data, manipulated data by a few who’s methods and motivate are suspect and attempt to use that tiny bit of data to extract a conclusion about planetary systems, over a geologic time frame.
You believe that run away green house warming can happen, and that it can be the results of human activity. You deny any knowledge of any systemic dampening effect.
A reasonable person would then ask if it is possible, why has it not already happened since the planet’s age is thought to be some 4 billion years?
The inescapable conclusion is climate changes has happened in the past, will happen in the future, and human activity has nothing to do with it.
The climate changes we experience are with in boundary conditions set by the presence of large quantities of water, distance from the sun, and energy output from the sun.
Skandia Recluse on February 19, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Depends on how big they are… ;-)
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Let’s plant more trees instead of destroying what’s left of our industrial base with additional assinine environmental restrictions in the midst of the worst economic period in our nation’s history…m-kay?!
Wyznowski on February 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM
S.R., I can take a joke but that fare alone is pretty thin gruel.
Anyway, I’ll repeat what I just said – the Earth’s climate certainly has changed due to natural forces, but it is also changing due to human activity. The current rate of warming we’re seeing is worrisome because as far as we can tell it’s more than what would be expected if it was only non-human forcing involved.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:41 PM
You like natural gas? STFU!:
A coalition of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the federal government from allowing the drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska.
The Interior Department is set to lease to developers about 30 million acres of land in the Chukchi Sea on February 6 however environmental groups are aiming to prevent the drilling saying it will endanger Alaska’s polar bear population.
Buy Danish on February 19, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Oh, silly me. I didn’t realize that we know what the Earth’s temperature is supposed to be. Tell me, what’s it supposed to be 100 years from now, without human activity? You must know this, also. I just want to listen to a higher power telling me how it is, and should be.
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Buy Danish, it’s possible to consider environmental impacts when extracting natural resources.
FWIW, one of my favorite sayings came from a mining friend of mine: “If it ain’t grown, it’s mined”. Mining is something that’s necessary to our well being and I’m not agin’ it. I do think it’s worth taking the time (and expense) to conduct mining in such a way that it doesn’t despoil the environment for us and other species though.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM
This isn’t about what temperatures are supposed to be, it’s about how rising temperatures affect the planet. Even a small rise in sea level will dramatically affect places like Bangladesh, not to mention nearly every coastal city on the planet.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/#more-5697
It seems that less than 20% of the people involved in the IPCC have expertise, much less degrees, in atmospheric sciences.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:53 PM
man oh man, do you love to display your ignorance.
I can’t think of a single glacier where the above statement is true.
For ones like Greenland and Antarctica, dudlet is wrong by several orders of magnitude.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Hey, we’ll only need 5,000,000 wind generators to produce the power the US needs! That’s only 100,000 per state! …and the wind has to blow…and we’ll need a bigger power grid…
We’ll need more stimulous money.
Wyznowski on February 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
You claimed, “[t]he current rate of warming we’re seeing is worrisome because as far as we can tell it’s more than what would be expected if it was only non-human forcing involved.”
If you had an idea of “what would be expected” without human meddling, then where did these expectations come from? You must have some idea of the climate evolution of the planet without humans. Let me hear the wisdom. Otherwise, stop making idiotic statements like the one I quoted here. Take your pick. Put up or shut up.
Come on, just tell me a little of the future expected evolution of the Eath’s climate (without evil human influences). I really want to know, so I can be a hit at retard parties.
progressoverpeace on February 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
1) The desertification of the Sahel ended about 20 years ago.
2) The desertificatio of the Sahel was caused by changing climatic conditions.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM
If we don’t know what the earth’s temperature is, how do we know it’s increasing.
Given the extremely bad quality of the ground based (and sea based) temperature network, it’s doubtfull that we know the actual temperature within 5 degrees C, much less the couple of hundredths claimed by the IPCC.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM
MarkTheGreat, think of it as this then: a square meter of snow that has fallen at the top of a glacier has less mass than a square meter of ice at the bottom after much compression has taken place. That’s why simply measuring the mere “thickness” of a glacier isn’t an indication of it’s total mass.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 3:59 PM
You forgot to factor in the inconvenient fact that those windmills are turning less than 30% of the time.
So you have to increase the number of windmills by a factor of at least 3 to 4.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM
dudlet, read up on the rule of holes.
Do you honestly believe that the snow doesn’t get compressed into ice until the end of the glacier?
Man of little wit, the snow is compressed completely before the glacier even begins to move. Right at the top.
Most glaciers run for miles. The Greenland ones run for hundreds of miles. The Antartica ones can run for a thousand miles or more.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Yuk yuk. In other words, none. Whether it was 10k years ago, or tomorrow, forces totally beyond our control have everything to do with climate, and makind is less than the dust on the scales in comparison.
Lemme clue you in: There’s this big hot thing in the sky called the sun that has a lot to do with our climate. Also, we are sitting on a bzillion tons of molten lava that squirts out all over the place, mainly under the oceans, even under the polar ice cap, that might also have some effect on earth’s temperature. Add axial wobble and minute variantions in our orbit, and it’s clear that the whole GW farce is a ruse to grow government and stifle freedom because that’s what all of its “remedies” have in common.
CO2 is .03 or thereabouts of the atmosphere. It is irrelevent to the climate, it is a harmless gas which is what we were told when catalytic converters were mandated on cars: to turn CO into CO2. If the atmosphere were a 100 storey skyscraper, CO2 would be less than the linoleum in the lobby.
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM
If there were no human influences, we’d likely be slightly cooling. Check this out for more if you really want to be a hit though:
Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
In terms of being able to absorb radiation, CO2 is already close to saturation.
Even if 100% of the remaining energy were to be blocked, there wouldn’t be enough extra warming to make more than a small difference in the earth’s temperature.
The frightening scenarios are all based on the assumption that water vapor will form a strong positive feedback.
The problem is, that whenever anybody has bothered to actually study how water vapor behaves in a warming atmosphere, they discover that water vapor, instead of being a strong positive feedback, is actually a strong negative feedback.
As a result, the impact of enhanced CO2 is decreased, not increased.
Here’s a good chart for those of you who’s minds aren’t already closed to reality.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I’ll give starfleet_dude kudos for persistence, and for addressing each issue that’s being raised.
But, on the matter of whether or not we’re experiencing warming? Well, let’s look at the warmest years on record, in order:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
Only 1 year in the 2000s is on the list. There are 4 years from the 1930s on the list. If we had assumed in 1939 that mankind would destroy itself thru CO2 emmissions in 15 years, would we have been correct?
In a less emprical experiment, I’m willing to make a wager with you. One of the key predictions of doom is that AGW will trigger catastrophic increases in ocean levels. In 20 years, let’s meet in Times Square, NY. If we’re standing in water, or if NY has had to build retaining walls to prevent encroaching water, you win. If not, I win.
As to what we win, I’ll bet you as much or as little as you like, and give you $10 to every $1 you bet. If 20 years isn’t the right time frame for you, you can change the time frame to any number of years you like. Are you willing to back your convictions with your own money?
Or do you just wish to battle climate change with OTHER peoples’ money?
hawksruleva on February 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM
We are cooling. And more than slightly.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Oh – and don’t forget, if we’re really worried about global warming, someone is going to have to plug Mount Redoubt. Because when that blows, the reflectivity is likely to lower temperatures.
Come to think of it, all sorts of unexpected phenomenons tend to affect temperatures. But I’m sure climate models take all unexpected phenomenons into account ;-) Was there a climate model that correctly predicted last year’s average temperature for any country, anywhere?
hawksruleva on February 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Nope, just that the concept of overall glacial “thickness” is misleading.
What we’re seeing happen in glacial ice globally is a retreat of ice up valleys and away from the sea. In Greenland and elsewhere the amount of snow at the top is not keeping up with the loss of ice at the bottom.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
If there’s sea water in Times Square in 20 years, winning a bet will be cold comfort. However the rise in sea level is being taking seriously enough by officials in NYC:
Bloomberg: City must adapt to global warming now
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM
An asteroid can ruin your whole day too, but in the meantime what we do (or don’t do) still matters.
starfleet_dude on February 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
As always, reality does not coincide with your wishes.
The amount of ice that is melting at the few leading edges that are still melting, is more than made up by the amount of ice accumulating in the interiors.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Even the IPCC isn’t predicting more than a meter or two over the next century. And the IPCC is almost reflexively hysterical.
As always, your paranoid fantasies have no basis in reality.
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Speaking of volcanoes, the last 30 years have been unusually quiet on that front.
Atmospheric transparency is at record high levels because of how few vocanoes have been going burp in recent years.
The last big one was Pinatubo, and that was what, 1982?
MarkTheGreat on February 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Hey starfleet,
Who are YOU to decide what is the ‘correct’ temperature anyway? We have trees frozen in high altitudes in CA which were growing back in the 1400s.
Was it too warm back then? Who was the ‘starfleet dude’ authority the humans should turn to before panicking?
DavidM on February 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Sooo, you’re taking my bet, or not? I’ll give you better odds if you want.
You seem unwilling to gamble with your own money that you’re right. But you’re perfectly willing to gamble much LARGER amounts of other folks’ money. It’s like telling folks to pay taxes, then not paying taxes.
I’ll do you another favor, if giving you money (according to your own scientific predictions) doesn’t suffice. Clearly, you’re concerned with mankind’s effect on the planet. You should take action to reduce your own effect on the planet. That means eliminating your use of gasoline, electricity, and products created with those power supplies. To that end, I’m willing to take ownership of your worldly posessions. No more electricity use from your home, no more car belching forth fumes, no more money being spent on beef (which emit CO2) or broccoli (which absorbs CO2), no more clothes shipped on CO2-belching ships.
Together, we can effectively reduce your carbon footprint to only your breathing!
hawksruleva on February 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I used 20% to factor in maintenance and lack of wind less efficiency as well…2005 US power consumption was about 3,340,000 MW. Each mill is about 3.5 MW. There are factions seriously pursuing the complete elimination of coal for any power generation or fuel. We are so screwed.
Wyznowski on February 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
When you point me to Wikipedia-you point me in an unsubstantiated direction that is not peer reviewed.
I am no climate scientist. But as a geologist I believe I can make a fair estimate on past climatology & compare it to events happening now.
Picking & choosing data sets to make or break a point is wasting space.
The true answer to anything is most often found in the middle.
BTW-geologic time is so vast we piddly little humans often cannot grasp the concept.
These ‘historical’ records we have is like pi$$ing in the ocean.
The context is so far out of whack compared to total history it could even be a freak anomaly.
I have an open mind for logical things & conclusions.
The climate may very well be warming. As compared to what?
Yesterday?
10 years ago?
100 yrs ago?
How bout 10 million years ago?
4.5 billion years ago?
Context matters.
And if you don’t know that CO2 increase actually responds to temp increase, then you haven’t done your HW.
Badger40 on February 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Here is a little objective scientific proof to support your statements.
I take the Smithsonian over Wiki…
It also appears to be taken seriously by the Smithsonian…the problem is that it is a natural occurrence.
Your such a putz starfleet…you buy into this garbage so easily.
right2bright on February 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM
None of this crap will work unless gasoline is $4 a gallon. Watch for a floating federal gas tax to adjust the price to $4 regardless of the actual price.
When gas got up to $4 before, all Precedent Obama had to say was “It got there too fast”. YEAH, it pissed everybody off!
And how will industry survive when electric rates go through the roof? Hint: they won’t.
darwin-t on February 19, 2009 at 6:27 PM
It’s funny how things work…We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, then the green plants take in the carbon dioxide to make oxygen. And, according to some people, it’s all pure chance…
Good thing the Obama Nation doesn’t believe in anything that can’t be initiated or ‘controlled’ by government bureaucrats.
Christine on February 19, 2009 at 6:39 PM
I almost forgot.
Global Warming: It’s the Sun, Stupid.
darwin-t on February 19, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Regulate this, mother f-er
RightWinged on February 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Can someone please, please, please explain to me how the stuff that makes my Cherry Coke fizzy is a deadly substance that is destroying the environment? Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
jimmy2shoes on February 19, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I seem to remember from my Botany 101 class that plants take in oxygen and give off CO2 at night; of course at a much slower metabolic rate than when they have the sun to power photosynthesis.
The largest source of CO2 is decaying organic matter; regulating the very small percentage of the gas production that we can control is futile.
mad scientist on February 19, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Seeing as AGW has been discredited in the last few months, I am a bit surprised to see Uhbama pushing forward.
Perhaps he can get Mann and Hansen to fudge the economic numbers when this legislation pushes us into a depression? Based on prior experience that procedure works pretty well.
18-1 on February 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Wait until you find out that those evil business people have put the very dangerous component Dihydrogen Monoxide in your beverage!!!
Dihydrogen Monoxide is a leading killer year after year and yet we still haven’t gotten the EPA to regulate it!!!
18-1 on February 20, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Well lets see. Since we’re burning this all we really need to do is first figure out how much carbon is in the fuel and then just use C + O2 -> CO2 to calculate how much CO2 is produced. So lets do a back of the envelope calculation, we have 30k gallons of fuel and there’s about 6 lbs to the gallon of fuel. (It’s lighter than water which would be 8 lbs per gallon before anybody asks.) So thats
30000 * 6 = 180000 lbs of fuel
Since it’s a hydrocarbon there’s about 2 hydrogens for every carbon so just multiply the weight of fuel by 12/14, doing that
180000 (12/14) = 154000 lbs of carbon
Since carbon has an atomic mass of 12 and carbon dioxide an atomic mass of 44 we can convert lbs of carbon to CO2 by just multiply by 3.6667 which gives us
154000 * 3.667 = 565000 lbs of CO2
And to finish up divide that by 2000 to convert it to tons
565000 /2000 = 282.5 tons
So about 280 tons of CO2. (Yes, I’m doing alot of rounding since my figures aren’t exact but it gives us a ball park.)
Dave_d on February 20, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »