Obama and Lisa Jackson seize control of CO2 production

[Throckmorton]

Yet scientists also say that millions of years ago the CO2 concentrations are higher than the present day amount.

Right... and the earth was much hotter. You don't want to live in the Cretaceous, when global average temp was 5 degrees hotter than now.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So what caused the CO2 levels to be higher? Dinosaur farts?

I believe that humans affect the amount of CO2 but at the same time believe much of the CO2 is from natural sources. I expect a spike this year from the many volcanic eruptions in Indonesia.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's not toxic. Look up the definition of a toxin.

A simple Google search turned up these articles on CO2 toxicity.

http://www.emedmag.com/html/pre/tox/0500.asp
http://precisiondiving.net/blog/hidden-killer-understanding-carbon-dioxide-toxicity/
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html

 

[Throckmorton]

So what caused the CO2 levels to be higher? Dinosaur farts?

I believe that humans affect the amount of CO2 but at the same time believe much of the CO2 is from natural sources. I expect a spike this year from the many volcanic eruptions in Indonesia.

What caused the CO2 levels to be higher was warming. Before we started pumping carbon out of the ground and into the air, it was a dependent variable. The earth's orbital cycle, changes in solar radiation, volcanism, and biology were the independent variables until now.

 

[theeedude]

I think this is a good idea. Not because of pollution of global warming, but because of the economic vulnerability that our dependence on fossil fuels puts us in. Let's face it, we have debts up to our neck, and the only way out is to devalue our currency. The big fly in their ointment is that dollar denominated commodity prices will go up as the dollar falls. So we need to prepare for that.

 

[monovillage]

It's a popular myth that CO2 isn't toxic. 1% makes you drowsy, 7% causes unconsciousness, 10% causes death.

So please Throckmorton, can you tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere right now ? I'm scared that we're going to reach that 10% number and all die !!

*EDIT* ohh never mind, there's about 388 parts per 1,000,000,000 according to the Mauna Loa numbers........i guess there's nothing to be scared of after all. Go figure.

OHH and look at this, water toxicity! The medical definition. Let's ban water!
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Water+toxicity

 

[JSt0rm]

Lisa Jackson!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH run away...

 

[Zorkorist]

With Nuclear Power, it is easy to have cheap, clean, energy.

-John

 

[Throckmorton]

So please Throckmorton, can you tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere right now ? I'm scared that we're going to reach that 10% number and all die !!

*EDIT* ohh never mind, there's about 388 parts per 1,000,000,000 according to the Mauna Loa numbers........i guess there's nothing to be scared of after all. Go figure.

OHH and look at this, water toxicity! The medical definition. Let's ban water!
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Water+toxicity

Better cancel your flood insurance policy unless you're some nutjob who believes dihydrogen monoxide is toxic!

Not to mention hurricane insurance, unless you think air is hazardous.

 

[monovillage]

Better cancel your flood insurance policy unless you're some nutjob who believes dihydrogen monoxide is toxic!

Not to mention hurricane insurance, unless you think air is hazardous.

Pretty much anything in extreme amounts is toxic, that is why the water toxicity link (we had a student die of it here at the University a couple of years back) 388 parts per Billion is hardly an extreme amount of CO2.

 

[K1052]

ugh

They should start going after the decades old coal fired power stations that don't have pollution controls instead. CO2 is the last thing to be worried about from the amount of particulates, NOx,SO2, and uranium/thorium they are dumping into our air instead. The NHTSA should also increase the penalties for CAFE standard violations.

 

[CPA]

So many ridiculous slogans in this thread:

"CarbonCON"

"Imperial Obama"

"Seize control"

The EPA is doing it's job, enforcing environmental standards. You know like what's suppose to be doing, instead of big giveaways to polluters during the Bush years?

That aren't enforcing shit, they are making up their own rules.

BTW, can you provide an example of "big giveaways to polluters during the Bush years"?

 

[rockyct]

So many ridiculous slogans in this thread:

"CarbonCON"

"Imperial Obama"

"Seize control"

The EPA is doing it's job, enforcing environmental standards. You know like what's suppose to be doing, instead of big giveaways to polluters during the Bush years?

<shhhh>I'm having fun watching them imagine new conspiracy stories.

 

[werepossum]

So what was your reaction to Bush's Clear Skies Act in 2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

Here is the meat of it:

Generally against it. I'm almost universally in favor of tighter restrictions on pollutants, including provisionally on CO2. I'm almost universally against cap and trade programs.

This is what the EPA says about human CO2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html


This is what EPA says about all of the other sources of CO2
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_natural.html


The bold one is the only major natural source of CO2. Trees are carbon neutral because they soak up carbon when they grow and they release that same amount of carbon when they decay. Volcanoes release CO2 by melting carbonate rocks. Oceans are the opposite of volcanoes - they soak up CO2 and form carbonate rocks.

A carbonate rock looks like this

Please, please tell me you are joking. I cannot bear thinking that someone with access to a computer, supposedly educated in a modern Western nation, and possessed of an opinion on global warming could be so abysmally stupid as to thinkfeel that volcanic eruption is "the only major natural source of CO2." (Especially when the actual source quoted says "this source is very small.")

 

[Throckmorton]

Generally against it. I'm almost universally in favor of tighter restrictions on pollutants, including provisionally on CO2. I'm almost universally against cap and trade programs.



Please, please tell me you are joking. I cannot bear thinking that someone with access to a computer, supposedly educated in a modern Western nation, and possessed of an opinion on global warming could be so abysmally stupid as to thinkfeel that volcanic eruption is "the only major natural source of CO2." (Especially when the actual source quoted says "this source is very small.")

Other natural "sources" of CO2, respiration and decomposition, are only releasing recently sequestered carbon.

 

[Amused]

Science by science is science, and the greenhouse effect is a physical property of CO2. Despite what your preacher told you, in real life you can't change reality by wishing really hard.

The FACT of the science looking into the effect of the CO2 released by humans is this: No accurate model has been produced that can show the short term effects, much less long term effects. Not one. And of all the models made, all have proved to be ridiculously biased in favor of the predetermined outcome desired by the people who made them.

Not one scientist can come close to accurately predicting what a small percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 will do short term, or long term. They are only guessing.

Another fact: The entirety of human civilization has occurred in a very brief warm period historically punctuated by long cold periods. A cycle that has been happening for millions of years. We are, actually, over due for a cooling trend. If anything, thank your lucky charms that we may be causing a tiny bit of warming.

Am I all for reducing polution? You bet. But am I willing to tank the economy and sacrifice my quality of life based on obviously flawed and biased predictions? Nope.

 

[bfdd]

The FACT of the science looking into the effect of the CO2 released by humans is this: No accurate model has been produced that can show the short term effects, much less long term effects. Not one. And of all the models made, all have proved to be ridiculously biased in favor of the predetermined outcome desired by the people who made them.

Not one scientist can come close to accurately predicting what a small percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 will do short term, or long term. They are only guessing.

Another fact: The entirety of human civilization has occurred in a very brief warm period historically punctuated by long cold periods. A cycle that has been happening for millions of years. We are, actually, over due for a cooling trend. If anything, thank your lucky charms that we may be causing a tiny bit of warming.

Am I all for reducing polution? You bet. But am I willing to tank the economy and sacrifice my quality of life based on obviously flawed and biased predictions? Nope.

The fact that no one has accurately modeled anything should be reason enough not to legislate on stuff.

 

[Hacp]

Shouldn't Obama be trying to help the economy, not hurt it? He promised green jobs, where are they? No where! Obama governs by feelings, not reality.

 

[Throckmorton]

The FACT of the science looking into the effect of the CO2 released by humans is this: No accurate model has been produced that can show the short term effects, much less long term effects. Not one. And of all the models made, all have proved to be ridiculously biased in favor of the predetermined outcome desired by the people who made them.

Not one scientist can come close to accurately predicting what a small percentage increase in atmospheric CO2 will do short term, or long term. They are only guessing.

Another fact: The entirety of human civilization has occurred in a very brief warm period historically punctuated by long cold periods. A cycle that has been happening for millions of years. We are, actually, over due for a cooling trend. If anything, thank your lucky charms that we may be causing a tiny bit of warming.

Am I all for reducing polution? You bet. But am I willing to tank the economy and sacrifice my quality of life based on obviously flawed and biased predictions? Nope.

It's pretty damn simple. You can test the warming effect of the CO2 concentration increase in a beaker in a lab.

Your argument about "models" is basically the same as "we can't accurately model what will happen to a car in an accident so we shouldn't worry about accidents or regulate safety features". Do you see how ridiculous that is?


Yes, a tiny bit of warming could prevent the next ice age completely. But the too much warming will be tip us far from the cycle that has been happening for 2.6 million years

 

[Amused]

It's pretty damn simple. You can test the warming effect of the CO2 concentration increase in a beaker in a lab.

Your argument about "models" is basically the same as "we can't accurately model what will happen to a car in an accident so we shouldn't worry about accidents or regulate safety features". Do you see how ridiculous that is?


Yes, a tiny bit of warming could prevent the next ice age completely. But the too much warming will be tip us far from the cycle that has been happening for 2.6 million years

A beaker in a lab cannot accurately simulate the Earth's atmosphere, as is most obviously displayed by the utter failure of climate models.

Yes, we CAN recreate and prove what is safe in cars. It can be tested and repeated. Climate models cannot, and have proved to be based more on the bias of the model creator than anything else.

As it stands, there is NO valid, compelling evidence to weaken economies or lower our standard of living. None.

 

[Jhhnn]

A beaker in a lab cannot accurately simulate the Earth's atmosphere, as is most obviously displayed by the utter failure of climate models.

Yes, we CAN recreate and prove what is safe in cars. It can be tested and repeated. Climate models cannot, and have proved to be based more on the bias of the model creator than anything else.

As it stands, there is NO valid, compelling evidence to weaken economies or lower our standard of living. None.

Unless you're a believer in the theological "young Earth" claptrap, it's obvious that biological and geological forces have been sequestering enormous amounts of carbon in the earth's crust for hundreds of millions of years. It's also obvious that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The notion that putting a large amount of that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years will have little to no effect is wishful thinking and denial. Might as well take the POV of Reagan's secretary of the Interior, James Watt- none of it will matter when the Rapture comes.

Quite what will happen is, as you suggest, difficult to predict, particularly given that any changes will lag increased CO2 concentrations for decades, if not longer, and that there are other factors very much in play. None of that denies the obvious fact of high correlation between Man's use of fossil fuels and increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Current levels are well above anything recorded for the last 400K years, and climbing fast.

A thoughtful and non-hysterical article on the subject-

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

 

[Amused]

Unless you're a believer in the theological "young Earth" claptrap, it's obvious that biological and geological forces have been sequestering enormous amounts of carbon in the earth's crust for hundreds of millions of years. It's also obvious that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The notion that putting a large amount of that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years will have little to no effect is wishful thinking and denial. Might as well take the POV of Reagan's secretary of the Interior, James Watt- none of it will matter when the Rapture comes.

Quite what will happen is, as you suggest, difficult to predict, particularly given that any changes will lag increased CO2 concentrations for decades, if not longer, and that there are other factors very much in play. None of that denies the obvious fact of high correlation between Man's use of fossil fuels and increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Current levels are well above anything recorded for the last 400K years, and climbing fast.

A thoughtful and non-hysterical article on the subject-

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Again, you have no proof that it IS having a significant effect on climate. None whatsoever. Only conjecture based on biased models proved to be completely unreliable and biased by the very same preconceived notion you are arguing from.

If scientists cannot accurately model the climatic effects of any change in the atmosphere, then the outcome remains completely uncertain. Period.

 

[boomerang]

Someone show me something empirical that reducing CO2 emissions will measurably reduce levels enough to "make a difference". That's what the argument should be centered on.

This is where the farce of the entire movement comes into focus. It is designed to play on people who are easily influenced and caught up in various "causes". We could cease all man-made production of CO2, including our own breathing, and the difference in CO2 levels would be immeasurable.

This has all been de-bunked time and time again. I said it earlier and I guess I need to say it again. The basis for this movement is global redistribution of wealth with a side product of making the organizers of same movement very, very rich.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, you have no proof that it IS having a significant effect on climate. None whatsoever. Only conjecture based on biased models proved to be completely unreliable and biased by the very same preconceived notion you are arguing from.

If scientists cannot accurately model the climatic effects of any change in the atmosphere, then the outcome remains completely uncertain. Period.

I didn't offer that such changes are predictable, nor did the article I linked. The notion that nothing will happen remains preposterous.

Someone show me something empirical that reducing CO2 emissions will measurably reduce levels enough to "make a difference". That's what the argument should be centered on.

This is where the farce of the entire movement comes into focus. It is designed to play on people who are easily influenced and caught up in various "causes". We could cease all man-made production of CO2, including our own breathing, and the difference in CO2 levels would be immeasurable.

This has all been de-bunked time and time again. I said it earlier and I guess I need to say it again. The basis for this movement is global redistribution of wealth with a side product of making the organizers of same movement very, very rich.

Interesting assertion of propaganda as fact. Links please.

I suppose that you contend that the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 with the industrial revolution is mere happenstance, that the extensive burning of fossil fuels magically involves no combustion byproducts, CO2 &H2O being the major ones... that today's levels, still climbing, clearly greater than those of the last 400K years, have no origin beyond the earth's natural processes.

You put a whole lot of faith in the one thing that one guy from the UN had to say on the subject, apparently only because it fuels the fires of your paranoia and your desire to toe the party line of denial.

 

[boomerang]

I didn't offer that such changes are predictable, nor did the article I linked. The notion that nothing will happen remains preposterous.



Interesting assertion of propaganda as fact. Links please.

I suppose that you contend that the rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 with the industrial revolution is mere happenstance, that the extensive burning of fossil fuels magically involves no combustion byproducts, CO2 &H2O being the major ones... that today's levels, still climbing, clearly greater than those of the last 400K years, have no origin beyond the earth's natural processes.

You put a whole lot of faith in the one thing that one guy from the UN had to say on the subject, apparently only because it fuels the fires of your paranoia and your desire to toe the party line of denial.

Paranoia?

I'm not the one with his panties all in a bunch afraid he's going to suffer some injustice due the wishes of the military-industrial complex. Tie that in with your fear of the vast right wing conspiracy and your credibility is zero. Your whole post is a Freudian slip.

How's Christmas going in Berkeley this year?