Current US EPA Positions on Green House Gases...CO2

[saratogaupset]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html

[trubahamian]

Two things have already been determined concerning this subject,not related to US Politics:
1. In reality the Earth is cooling,all recent climate studies have confirmed it.Ice that is melting off some glaciers is not as much as ice freezing in other part of the Arctic and Antarctic.Most scientist believe we are about to enter,or long overdue for the next Iceage to begin.
2.Much of Western Europe has determined that Cap and Trade is just a new and "very profitable" taxbase for Governments that indulge in it.

[SamFamAustin]

True there is some cooling, especially in North America, but the relative change in temperatures in northern parts of Alaska and Siberia is something to behold, not even predicted by the climate models. The thinking is that all that water, once melted from ice at 33 to 34 degrees, actually makes the Northern US cooler, and can cool some of the ocean currents as well. This melting/cooling process might actually go on for 10 more years - interesting, no?

As I have said in other blogs, "average global warming" as one number doesn't make any sense at all. Some are warming tremendously, and other are getting much cooler, and a bunch of areas are "pretty much the same." None of this invalidates the natural process known as climate change. It does make it more difficult to "sell" the concept of global warming, however, since the "Cassandras" are quite vociferous about the world ending in 2100 if we don't do something today.

Myself, I think that climate change is something to be feared. It comes in all forms, such as how Australia got so dry and burned up, or the Eskimo villages are eroding and sinking due to Arctic melting, or the sea level rise in the Maldives is so rapid. When you put things in the perspective of climate, which is 30 years of data for new stuff or thousand for paleoclimatology, you do see some patterns. Is it linear with CO2 rises in concentration? No, it is not. But the recent papers such as by one man who said that early farmers who planted by burning their scrublands, just as they do today in many third world countries, caused just about as much effect on climate change as us big emitters today.

I find it a fascinating topic to discuss and not to jump to any conclusions. Because like mice and men, the best-laid plans usually work out all wrong.
sammie

[DrRalph]

This can get very interesting, but please keep it civil and apolitical.:)

[trubahamian]

Is it linear with CO2 rises in concentration? No, it is not. But the recent papers such as by one man who said that early farmers who planted by burning their scrublands, just as they do today in many third world countries, caused just about as much effect on climate change as us big emitters today.

I find it a fascinating topic to discuss and not to jump to any conclusions. Because like mice and men, the best-laid plans usually work out all wrong.
sammie

Thank You Sammie....you are helping me make my point.None of this can be scientifically associated to co2 emissions,not one bit.It is cyclical.It has happened before and it will happen again long after man has left this planet.

Now please tell the boys and girls about what the effect of the lack of solar flares is about to have on us..Uhhh,I mean mother earth. Much more important than co2...trust me.Go sammie,go.

[SamFamAustin]

Now Tru, I'm a freethinker and I can tell you that it is a proven fact that excess carbon dioxide (CO2) will result in some atmospheric heating depending on concentration, duration, and so forth. Aerosols, what you call black soot, also have a tremendous impact on global climatology. This stuff is proven beyond a doubt. The question is whether the man-made part of those emissions are having an effect on large-scale climatology. For now, we only see the Arctic Circle really taking the brunt of the heating, and the man-made portion is by no means clear.

As a student of atmospheric chemistry and dynamics, I can tell you one thing. There are two major plumes of man-made air that travel to the North Pole. One is from China, a massive brown cloud of coal dust and no telling what. This traverses over the Bering Sea and Alaska. The other plume is from the US, which crosses Greenland and wraps into the Arctic Circle somewhere around Finland, combining some EU pollution as well on the right side.

The way I heard it explained, if hot air shoots into the Arctic Circle, it will displace and move the icy cold air down on the Polar Jet Stream into the mid-latitudes of 40 to 60 degrees North. So far, this paradigm seems to be the case, with cool temperatures in the northern tier and some rather pesky troughs off the East Coast, which brought some monumental rain to the Abacos.

Things are expected to change a wee bit this year, although the proof is in the pudding. The northern tier of states are expected to become warmer and drier relative to climactic, and the south might be wetter and cooler. All this is mainly due to a weak El Nino event this year the blew the tar out of any and all hurricanes in the Atlantic (knock on wood). I mean, even the "F" hurricane wimped out and died, "Fred" I think. Only 6 so far, out of 12 to 16 storms.

Hey folks I have no predictions but this is some complicated machinery here.

[Island Daze]

Funny but haven't we gone through many ice ages and warming periods that had nothing to do with humans?And really do you give a **** what happens in two hundred years or so, i'm dead so what do i care.

[PaBill]

So, under this cap and trade deal, how do they calculate the carbon footprint and whom to assess the carbon taxes to, on the next volcanic eruption? :confused:
I'm just sayin'. :cool:

[trubahamian]

Now ya readin ma mail Pa Bill! That was strate where I was about to lead Sammie!
Way back in the day wen I was in University in the US,one of my better science professors elaborately explained and proved that volcanos spew more pollutants and poison than man does into our atmosphere.In fact wen Mt Krakatoa had it's last major eruption in 1883 and the continued minor eruptions that had been monitored up to 1927,Krakatoa had spewed more toxins and pollution into the air then mankind had in all it's known existence.After that eruption there was so much global pollution caused by dust that it caused a global mini-iceage for 3 to 5 years!The subject matter then moved on to the latest major volcanic eruption at that time.. Mt St.Helens and folks the amount of pollution from that was astounding as well.

My point is this...We need to have clean air and water,but that need should not be just another oppurtunity for Governments to confiscate our money.Besides...isn't co2 assential for plant all life to flourish on Earth.If there is too much co2,wouldn't the plant life take off like it was on steroids? Doesn't that plant life supply the oxygen needed for all other life on Earth? This quickly gets like a dog chasing it's tail....going nowhere.


Sammie....wat about the lack of solar flares and sunspots? We have enjoyed the benefits of them for most of our lives and we are about to enter a new way of life without them ya know.
"Solar cycle 24" has most certainly not lived up to the expectations forecasted by most solar scientists and THAT WAS the very foundation for this global warming sherade.

I have always been an amatuer scientist,but I believe in scientific proof,not prediction.Predicting a global climate event is no more accurate than trying to predict how many hurricanes we will have in a given year.Historically these predictions have been about as accurate as a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard.

[SamFamAustin]

Gee folks, I don't recall saying I endorsed all the notions, theories, and modeling about anthropogenic global warming. And true, volcanoes and dust storms can have a cooling effect on the globe - if a large asteroid hit the Earth it would throw enough dirt into the air to darken the skies for a year.

But what I see on my radar is that we'll end up with some kind of CO2 regulations, perhaps the motor vehicles and very large power plants for now. Those are the current regulations being pondered or implemented.

In the past I have taken a stance against "cap and trade," since the companies will figure out a way to game the system and even make money on it. Some of the strategies are downright silly, like making more CO2 in one area, and then planting thousands of date palm in another ... the date palms are supposed to make CO2 "credits" and plus the date palms can be boiled down into glycerin soap. We should have a "Hall of Shame" for some of these projects, like one that recieved the highest "clean building award" for building a huge parking lot and putting in a golf course on the roof. Oh, I know a bunch of these examples of "greenwashing" all over the place. Follow the money, follow the money...

But it is complicated machinery and nobody really understands it all, including poor dumb ole me.

As to sunspots and sun energy, I think that much of that has been disproven, at least as far as causing climate change. The wattage of the sun has been fairly constant or even slightly declining (watts per meter of the Earth's surface). Sunspots are interesting, more for their possibly devastating effect on communication devices like radios, but this summer's "sunspot event" never really materialized, as was predicted. Oh well, as you say, another dart, my friends.
sammie

[ScottB]

I love the global warming / climate change debate. Reminds me of the hole-in-the-ozone-layer crisis :eek: and our conversion from HCFC’s a while back.

As an HVAC/R service tech at the time, I attended an ASHRAE seminar where the topic was the upcoming new refrigerants and the necessary equipment mods. I asked the speaker the BIG question – “this is relatively speculative science… what if we’re wrong about this ozone thing? Are we sure the new chemical refrigerants won’t cause fresh troubles? Isn’t this all happening a little too quickly?” He answered very succinctly; “In reality, part of the motivation for converting to new chemistry is related to chemical patents and production licensing. New chemical patents are in place for the replacement refrigerants. DuPont has already begun manufacturing the new stuff and is ramping down production of the old. They had reached a point where Freon had too many cloning competitors and none of them had to pay for the privilege of making & selling it. If they want to stay in the business now, they’ll have to cough up the fees.” Ozone, schmozone… hearing statements like that will make one a cynic pretty quickly – and the focus on global warming has me wondering who the big beneficiaries are going to be…:confused:

[trubahamian]

Who will benefit?
The tax collectors of erry country that participates in this nonsense,all of their politicians and backers and a puffy faced guy who used to be a vice president or something that flys all ova the world in his private jet promoting this stuff to sell his books and movies.

It is always about the money first,people last.:)

[SamFamAustin]

Hey ScottB, I think you were correct that the patent on Freon was running out, but the ozone hole problem is one of he few good "clean air" programs the EPA ever did. That and taking the lead out of gasoline and a few other things. Even where results seem marginal or less dramatic, such as Acid Rain, the benefits have been truly great. I remember swimming by a paper mill one time, something my dad told me not to do, and I burned my skin so bad with alkali from the plant that I nearly had to go to the hospital. Now most of the paper mills are very clean and you can eat the fish from the rivers. But as to the ozone depleting chemicals like bromine, fluorine, and CFC, not all mind you because you can still buy it, that was a true success story. Last I heard, the EPA was thinking about banning methyl bromide, a common fungicide used in agriculture, but apparently there's no replacement so they left it off the rule.

The remnants of the ozone hole are still there by the way, just not as big anymore or as long during the year - it just doesn't make the headlines anymore.

[PaBill]

Funny but haven't we gone through many ice ages and warming periods that had nothing to do with humans?And really do you give a **** what happens in two hundred years or so, i'm dead so what do i care.

Had some one just a hundred years ago not decided that they should stop killing wolves, Buffalo, Elk, MOuntain Lions, Alligators, bald Eagles, Brown and Black Bears...one could go on for hours..all of them would be gone. There used to be Millions of Passanger pigeons, they are all gone, because someone didnt care about people 200 years from now...
Some one will have to drink the water, someone will have to breathe the air, someone will have to grow food. I am no Environmentalist by any streach of the imagination, but I make it a goal to leave it cleaner than I find it. When I go out to hunt, I always pick up my shells, as well as any others I run across...Its only fair to save a little bit for my GrandChildren

[SamFamAustin]

Yes, this isn't as much about us, although we sure wouldn't want to be gassed like in Bhopal or Chernobyl from some other industry-made tragedy, but it's about our kids and the kids they have.

What is human, and completely valid, is a concern that many environmentalists came out saying that man-made Global Warming will be the end of the Earth as we know it. Tomorrow. That extreme position is rather frightening and seems like it could not be true. Indeed, I was listening to a reasonable scientist who claimed that the Earth could actually cool for the next ten years. And another equally respected scientist claimed that if mankind stopped emitting CO2 in all forms, the planet could continue to warm in future decades, no matter what we do today - a climate "tipping point." It is all rather baffling, especially when you see merit in BOTH arguments.

Where I see some validity and reason is that if you conserve and save energy, you'll save Big Money. Indeed, the average American totally wastes about 35 to 40 percent of its electricity, transportation fuels, and heat (or cooling). As an example, I participated in a surveys in California and Texas and in both states we found that the average single dwelling household had 1.5 lawnmowers and 2.5 lawnmower gasoline cans. Both states adopted standards for low-emission lawnmowers with a deadman's switch, and mandated no-leak gasoline cans. Now a gallon of lawnmower gas goes nearly twice as far, and the cans don't leak all over the place. A similar logic was used for outboard motorboats. This is called the "conservation approach" of which I totally agree.

The problem I see with the conservation approach is that it only works in developed countries like the US and over in Europe where we lived like fat cats for generations. For the last century, these developed countries consumed way too much energy and wasted way too much of it. Not so in developing countries like China and India, where many lack basic electric service, not to mention computers, cars, lawnmowers, and outboard motors! And their populations are exploding, while Europe's is declining and the US continues to grow its population at a very modest rate. Can you even tell people who have nothing to go out and "conserve" anything?

So those are the fears, and rightly so, that as populations in developing countries rise and they have rising expectations for more consumer products, the global warming potential could grow a lot more than it is today (never mind making draconian cuts). Even if you don't believe in global warming, somehow a whole bunch of electricity and industrial good are needed, which can and I think will cause more pollution.

Of course these developing countries like China and India will resist mandates for CO2 reductions. That's going the wrong way. In fact, many of the world's economists are saying that the US and Europe need to make cut-backs and save money, while developing countries need to spend tons of money on themselves. Only by doing that, will we really get out of this lingering recession.

Where the Bahamians are on this is difficult for me to understand, perhaps a wide range of opinions, but I really do enjoy the narratives about how strong, self reliant, and proud the Abaconians are, especially some of the 'Conian women. -sammie :)