And now some 'hot air' from the E.P.A.

[Kulindahr]

The sometimes gutless E.P.A. has gathered its collective courage and declared to the world that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations", and added that human emissions of greenhouses gases push global warming -- nice of them to allow mother nature some room for her own shenanigans, with their wording.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson noted, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations".

Of course, politicos had to weigh in. From California's Barbara Boxer came this: "We have lost eight years in this fight.... The best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market-based cap-and-trade system which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."


You can find the entire Reuters article here.

 

[hermanding]

i wonder if we have passed the tipping point some science people have warned about
ding

 

[Kulindahr]

i wonder if we have passed the tipping point some science people have warned about
ding

I wonder that myself. I've also been wondering about something that used to be speculation, back as far as the mid '80s: what's been referred to as a warming "cliff". It has to do with vast amounts of CO2 sitting in deep underwater deposits -- deposits which can, when water temperatures warm, suddenly cut loose and flood into the atmosphere. The rapid surge in atmospheric CO2 could then raise temperatures so drastically that ice sheets would collapse, the sea levels would lurch upward, not just creep. Inundation of coastal areas would alter coastal sea chemistry, and rotting submerged vegetation would feed even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Predictions of what would follow then fall into the disastrous to the apocalyptic; typical is sub-tropical climate moving into the middle latitudes... for centuries, no matter what humans do.... with resulting massive species die-offs, and inevitably massive human die-off.

It's a possibility that makes any diddling over controlling what we're putting into the atmosphere infantile and childish, and foolish.

 

[boogalee]

I haven't been here very long so I don't really know you but I get the impression that (a)you don't think humans had anything to do with the CO2 level and (b) you don't think we can or should do anything about it.

Your cliff that you mention above is methane which is frozen in deep oceans and tundra. Some of it is out gassing now and as the temp rises more and more will be released. There is a tipping point as you and Ding have mentioned. We wasted all the years from Carter on without doing anything that needed to be done. The last 8 were worse than wasted...but big oil made lots of money.

We are already in a massive die off. We just haven't gotten the stats yet.

 

[HenryReardon]

I wonder that myself. I've also been wondering about something that used to be speculation, back as far as the mid '80s: what's been referred to as a warming "cliff". It has to do with vast amounts of CO2 sitting in deep underwater deposits -- deposits which can, when water temperatures warm, suddenly cut loose and flood into the atmosphere. The rapid surge in atmospheric CO2 could then raise temperatures so drastically that ice sheets would collapse, the sea levels would lurch upward, not just creep. Inundation of coastal areas would alter coastal sea chemistry, and rotting submerged vegetation would feed even more CO2 into the atmosphere.

.

That sort of flies in the face of recent discoveries which show that CO2 follows warming instead of preceding it.

 

[boogalee]

That sort of flies in the face of recent discoveries which show that CO2 follows warming instead of preceding it.

Here is something about understanding the CO2 lag....

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine

<snip>

This is taken from here....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

Happy Earth Day everyone!!

 

[HenryReardon]

Here is something about understanding the CO2 lag....


!

Other sources disagree:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...19/COBUNK/Comment/comment/comment_temp/1/1/3/

Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air's increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree.

Most of the 20th-century surface warming is inconsistent with a human-made enhanced greenhouse effect. However, temperatures over the past 250 years do show a strong correlation to the energy output of the sun (see chart). The sun's shorter magnetic cycles are more intense, suggesting periods of a brighter sun, then a fainter sun during longer cycles. Data since 1986 is consistent with these trends.

Based on analysis of ancient and recent temperature and atmospheric data, increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are not a cause of significant global warming, contrary to forecasts by computer simulations. The magnitude of human-caused warming is especially constrained by the observed temperature trends of the lower troposphere. There is strong evidence that variation in the sun's energy output is a much more significant driver of surface temperature than human-made greenhouse gases.

 

[Jack Springer]

Cap and trade sound like more BS to me.

I'll believe in the religion of global warming caused by humans when someone in Malibu sells me their ocean front home for 10 cents on the dollar.

Before you all go crazy, I don't believe in wasting energy. I use energy saving light bulbs but wonder about all the mercury we will now put in land fills. I think all new homes should have some type of solar panels or wind blades to collect energy for items like water heaters. I control the heat and cooling in my home because I don't want to pay the high utility bills.

 

[chatolandia]

The sometimes gutless E.P.A. has gathered its collective courage and declared to the world that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations", and added that human emissions of greenhouses gases push global warming -- nice of them to allow mother nature some room for her own shenanigans, with their wording.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson noted, "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations".

Of course, politicos had to weigh in. From California's Barbara Boxer came this: "We have lost eight years in this fight.... The best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market-based cap-and-trade system which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth."


You can find the entire Reuters article here.

The deep water deposits are not CO2, they are methane, which is a way stronger Greenhouse gas than CO2


Right now the methane that is accumulated in the permafrost of the Northern Latitudes is bubbling up, compounding the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere...


There is also the problem that elevated levels of CO2 in the Ocean cause increased acidification of the oceans, proving potentially deadly to the billions of creatures that have shells

if the ocean gets too acidic, it could kill most of the life in it...

including fish and whales since the animals they feed on have shells...

 

[HenryReardon]

if the ocean gets too acidic, it could kill most of the life in it...

including fish and whales since the animals they feed on have shells...

Actually, many species of whales feed on plankton.

 

[boogalee]

I think that's what he was talking about, plankton...which is the young of many species and plants.

I'm not going to argue with someone who believes "teach the controversy" is a worthy argument about what is obvious to most people and endorsed by thousands of accredited scientists...climate scientists by the way. Those are the people at the link. Climate scientists.

The ocean is able to absorb a huge amount of CO2 but as mentioned it acidifies the ocean making it unlivable. There have been "dead zones" off the coast of Oregon for years which were mysterious until research indicated that acidification is the reason. What that means, "dead zones" is that there is no life there....something that is very unusual for the coast of Oregon.

Methane is already seeping up from it's various storage areas. The earth took thousands of years to store the methane making the atmosphere amenable to life as it is now. It can do a turnaround in the blink of an eye.

 

[HenryReardon]

I think that's what he was talking about, plankton...which is the young of many species and plants.

.

Plankton do not have shells.

 

[HenryReardon]

I'm not going to argue with someone who believes "teach the controversy" is a worthy argument about what is obvious to most people and endorsed by thousands of accredited scientists...climate scientists by the way. Those are the people at the link. Climate scientists.

.

Actually there are many scientists who dispute, or who have come to dispute the man-made global warming fraud.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
By EPW Blog

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

 

[Kulindahr]

The deep water deposits are not CO2, they are methane, which is a way stronger Greenhouse gas than CO2


Right now the methane that is accumulated in the permafrost of the Northern Latitudes is bubbling up, compounding the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere...


There is also the problem that elevated levels of CO2 in the Ocean cause increased acidification of the oceans, proving potentially deadly to the billions of creatures that have shells

if the ocean gets too acidic, it could kill most of the life in it...

including fish and whales since the animals they feed on have shells...

Well, there's CO2 somewhere underwater, that I read about -- lakes, maybe?

I remember now, reading about the acidic effect, too. Some biologists worry it could collapse entire ocean ecosystems.

 

[boogalee]

Plankton do not have shells.

You, again, are misinformed.

Plankton consist of any drifting organisms (animals, plants, archaea, or bacteria) that inhabit the pelagic zone of oceans, seas, or bodies of fresh water. Plankton are defined by their ecological niche rather than their phylogenetic or taxonomic classification. They provide a crucial source of food to more familiar aquatic organisms such as fish.

 

[boogalee]

Actually there are many scientists who dispute, or who have come to dispute the man-made global warming fraud.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

I have looked at the list of "thousands" that is so often cited and to be honest it is a joke. Most of the scientists named are not accredited climate scientists nor have they provided information regarding climate change that has stood up under the vetting by other climate scientists. In addition, there are names on that list that shouldn't be...and have been challenged by the very scientists themselves to have their names removed.

Now I expect that you will attempt to make the claim that these scientists of yours are being discriminated against for political reasons.

As I said, trying to talk to global warming deniers is the same as trying to talk to those who want to teach intelligent design in our schools. They teach the controversy....in your case, you are repeating the memes of the oil company shills...those scientists, by the way, are paid by the oil companies for instance.

Regardless of your beliefs about global warming the fact is that it is a National Security issue and has been for 30 years....and that, my dear, is as far as I will take this, so, have at it....]
.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plankton do not have shells.

It's diatoms with the shells. They're another important foundation of oceanic food chains.

 

[HenryReardon]

Actually there are many scientists who dispute, or who have come to dispute the man-made global warming fraud.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

I have looked at the list of "thousands" that is so often cited and to be honest it is a joke. Most of the scientists named are not accredited climate scientists nor have they provided information regarding climate change that has stood up under the vetting by other climate scientists. In addition, there are names on that list that shouldn't be...and have been challenged by the very scientists themselves to have their names removed.

Now I expect that you will attempt to make the claim that these scientists of yours are being discriminated against for political reasons.

As I said, trying to talk to global warming deniers is the same as trying to talk to those who want to teach intelligent design in our schools. They teach the controversy....in your case, you are repeating the memes of the oil company shills...those scientists, by the way, are paid by the oil companies for instance.

Regardless of your beliefs about global warming the fact is that it is a National Security issue and has been for 30 years....and that, my dear, is as far as I will take this, so, have at it....]
.

Yep. 30 years ago the same crowd was predicting a global ice age and for much the same reason.

"oil company shills" LOL. Been smoking those funny ciggies again?

 

[Kulindahr]

I tried to edit an earlier post, and my wireless glitched on me.

Just wanted to point out that diatoms are classified as phytoplankton, along with cyanobacteria.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW, Henry, I take the word of Japanese scientists quite skeptically. For decades now they've been telling those of us on the Pacific coast of the U.S. that their massive fishing operations aren't depleting the fish stocks, and that their illicit whaling isn't harming the whale populations -- both of which are pure b.s. Japanese scientists are generally tied to Japanese corporations, and Japanese corporations are intimately entangled with the government -- so Japanese scientists have a strong tendency to say what the government wants to hear.