Obama and Lisa Jackson seize control of CO2 production

[Throckmorton]

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.

Enough about the models. They're for predicting the results of warming, not warming itself.

The earth has an energy budget. It absorbs energy from the sun and reradiates energy. If you increase the heat retention with GGs, the globe heats up until a new equilibrium point is reached.

Do you need a model to tell you that putting on extra clothes increases your heat retention?

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

Nice dodge! So, uhh, where are the links to back up your assertions, anyway?

 

[Toastedlightly]

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

Now you quoted Wikipedia without understanding why these things occur. It all has to do with the concentrations of CO2 in your blood. Human bodies act in a way to control the balance of CO2 and O2 in the blood. Excess CO2 disturbs this cycle, causing blood acidity and other things we don't want in our bloodstream.

HOWEVER! These problems are easily reversed by simply removing an individual from the environment before significant damage occurs. The other materials I listed are far more dangerous. From wikipedia, it appears that our atmosphere is ~0.04% CO2 by volume. While we may double, or even triple the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere, it is nowhere near any toxic levels.

Therefore, I feel regulating CO2 emission as a toxic emission are bogus. Regulating CO2 for climate change has much more substance behind it than as a toxin (as it seems the EPA wishes to do)

 

[Toastedlightly]

Enough about the models. They're for predicting the results of warming, not warming itself.

The earth has an energy budget. It absorbs energy from the sun and reradiates energy. If you increase the heat retention with GGs, the globe heats up until a new equilibrium point is reached.

Do you need a model to tell you that putting on extra clothes increases your heat retention?

The argument isn't about wearing the clothes, its about weather its just a tshirt or if its a parka. You seem to be presenting a strawman argument to Amused's point.

 

[Amused]

The argument isn't about wearing the clothes, its about weather its just a tshirt or if its a parka. You seem to be presenting a strawman argument to Amused's point.

That's because he has no argument. He's like a fundie telling me I should believe in Jesus because the bible tells me so.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's because he has no argument. He's like a fundie telling me I should believe in Jesus because the bible tells me so.

Neither do you, really. It's obvious that increased CO2 levels will change things- how and when remains to be seen. One thing's for sure- if your POV prevails, we'll be rushing to find out, and it's not like we'll be able to turn on a dime if we want to.

 

[Darwin333]

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.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am in the solar business. I am one of those realistic true believers but what in the hell makes you think this will reduce global greenhouse emissions?

I am literally arguing against something that will make me millions of dollars because the way it will be implemented is fucking dumb. Sure we can reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions..... by offshoring them somewhere else. You know that is what will happen, Obama knows that is what will happen, Congress knows it and anyone with half a brain knows it. Go check out the environmental standards of the countries we import most of our shit from and call me a liar.

As long as the pollution is happening over there and not here then we are all good, right? Damn it, thats not the way it works though, is it?

Offshoring pollution will not work. Period. I highly doubt that either party is willing to put a "pollution tariff" on just about everything we purchase either so whats your plan B?

 

[Jhhnn]

In the interest of full disclosure, I am in the solar business. I am one of those realistic true believers but what in the hell makes you think this will reduce global greenhouse emissions?

I am literally arguing against something that will make me millions of dollars because the way it will be implemented is fucking dumb. Sure we can reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions..... by offshoring them somewhere else. You know that is what will happen, Obama knows that is what will happen, Congress knows it and anyone with half a brain knows it. Go check out the environmental standards of the countries we import most of our shit from and call me a liar.

As long as the pollution is happening over there and not here then we are all good, right? Damn it, thats not the way it works though, is it?

Offshoring pollution will not work. Period. I highly doubt that either party is willing to put a "pollution tariff" on just about everything we purchase either so whats your plan B?

I don't know that our own efforts won't be overwhelmed by other nations. I do know that our own emissions of greenhouse gasses are enormous, and that fact is widely used by others as justification for their own, particularly by emerging economies. We can only lead by example.

Plan B? I don't think there is one.

No matter what else happens, it's important for us to develop alternative energy sources, to consume energy in a more frugal and efficient manner, and to plan for a future where fossil resources are increasingly scarce and valuable. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. If we actually value our country at all, we'll do what we reasonably can to make that easier for our descendants.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's because he has no argument. He's like a fundie telling me I should believe in Jesus because the bible tells me so.

The amount of additional heat retained is determinable by physics... You don't believe in physics? Thermodynamics is a myth right?

 

[Patranus]

If the GOP had any balls they would simply defund the EPA.

 

[monovillage]

The amount of additional heat retained is determinable by physics... You don't believe in physics? Thermodynamics is a myth right?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

 

[Hacp]

Enough about the models. They're for predicting the results of warming, not warming itself.

The earth has an energy budget. It absorbs energy from the sun and reradiates energy. If you increase the heat retention with GGs, the globe heats up until a new equilibrium point is reached.

Do you need a model to tell you that putting on extra clothes increases your heat retention?

That's the difference between liberals and educated people. Liberals govern by feeling. Educated people want empirical evidence, not some theoretical bullshit based on a model that has never been tested in the real world.

 

[Hacp]

The amount of additional heat retained is determinable by physics... You don't believe in physics? Thermodynamics is a myth right?

It depends on the model you use. If you just do straight up CO2 calculations, you get a temperature increase that is negligible.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know that our own efforts won't be overwhelmed by other nations. I do know that our own emissions of greenhouse gasses are enormous, and that fact is widely used by others as justification for their own, particularly by emerging economies. We can only lead by example.

Its not leading by example when you, as a single example, make concrete more expensive to make in your country due to increased enviromental regulations and then start buying cheaper concrete from a country without those regulations. That is simply offshoring your pollution. We have done a ton of that already, hell even in the "green" industries like solar. Most solar installs use cheap Chinese panels because they are the cheapest cost per watt. Chinese solar industry pollution

Plan B? I don't think there is one.

Do you disagree with the above? Do you think that we won't simply offshore the whatever we can if it gets more expensive to produce here?

If so, why hurt our economy for net zero gain in greenhouse emissions?

No matter what else happens, it's important for us to develop alternative energy sources, to consume energy in a more frugal and efficient manner, and to plan for a future where fossil resources are increasingly scarce and valuable. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen. If we actually value our country at all, we'll do what we reasonably can to make that easier for our descendants.

I completely agree. I agree so much that I am actually doing just that for a living and as I stated, actions like this are in my best financial interests. Increasing the cost of electricity by 10% will make me millions. The problem is the country as a whole does not truly benefit from our current advancements. Part of that is because we have an ancient power grid, the power companies can't take any production offline regardless of how much solar I hook to their grid. To fix this would require massive investment from the .gov and I frankly don't think it will happen anytime soon as it would require an actual energy policy.

Then we get to the issue of the still going to be required baseline production. No matter how much renewable energy we install we are going to still need big central power plants. Nuclear is the only real answer if we are actually concerned with CO2 but we don't like that here in the US and even if we start now we are decades away from seeing any of that power.

 

[rcpratt]

Then we get to the issue of the still going to be required baseline production. No matter how much renewable energy we install we are going to still need big central power plants. Nuclear is the only real answer if we are actually concerned with CO2 but we don't like that here in the US and even if we start now we are decades away from seeing any of that power.

"Decades" is a bit of a stretch. A nuke plant will take 6-8 years to construct once breaking ground. Construction on AP1000s and ESBWRs could begin now if the money and need was there. The first ESBWR will be licensed in early 2012 and an AP1000 probably the year after.

The issue is shortsighted utility execs who are going to build combined cycle plants because natural gas is so cheap right now. When the prices shoot back up and they want a nuke plant yesterday, I'll be laughing.

 

[ShawnD1]

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.

Well we've been pumping out crazy amounts of CO2 for maybe 200 years and we're just now starting to see changes large enough to actually care about. Reducing emissions would do little because increasing is still increasing (duuuuh). Revering the process would take.... uhhhh... maybe 200 years I guess? Better get to work

 

[kage69]

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"?

Since you asked...
I wouldn't use the word 'giveaway,' but you'd have to be suffering from a brain injury or maybe just lots of Fox Noise to somehow miss the clear contempt the "Bush" admin had for the environment, and the agencies tasked with it's protection. That admin frequently muffled or changed scientific findings that didn't align with it's agenda, and it made no apologies about appointing former industry heads to the agencies responsible for oversight on those same industries.

The first year Cheney/Bush were in office they:

-Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
-Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
-Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
-Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
-Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
-Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
-Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement (actually I approve of this one)
-Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property
-Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million
-Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List
-Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming
-Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation
-Nominated David Lauriski -- an ex-mining company executive --- to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health
-Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida
-Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior
-Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality
-Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
-Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist


I know the coal industry had a huge collective boner when just before leaving office Bush finalized a rule change making it easier for coal companies that blow the tops off mountains to dump rubble and sludge near rivers and streams.

Business comes first and always knows best, and it's ok to have foxes watch the chickens. Classic neocon greed and arrogance.

Nice to see the EPA has a pair of balls now. If they're pissing off the ideological corporatists and their lobbyist henchmen, I'll take that as a good sign.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I agree with nuclear in principle, we simply haven't developed a comprehensive plan to deal with all aspects of it. A safe and sane repository for all the nuclear waste we currently have is vital to that. Hanford is an ecological timebomb due to local geology, and Yucca Mountain has been set aside. We need to start there if the public is to be convinced.

I'm not convinced that enormous reactors are the best answer, either. There are designs for smaller reactors that are walk away safe, reactors that can be mass produced in factories, assembled and fueled on site. Instead of 1 enormous reactor, several smaller ones can be employed.

While far from perfect, the French are the acknowledged leaders in implementation of nuclear power and nuclear waste sequestration- we could learn a lot from them.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's the difference between liberals and educated people. Liberals govern by feeling. Educated people want empirical evidence, not some theoretical bullshit based on a model that has never been tested in the real world.

The greenhouse effect isn't theoretical bullshit. It's physics. You can test it in a lab.

 

[Throckmorton]

That's the difference between liberals and educated people. Liberals govern by feeling. Educated people want empirical evidence, not some theoretical bullshit based on a model that has never been tested in the real world.

LOL. Right, that's why conservatives oppose stimulus and want to reduce spending to the point that we have a surplus during a RECESSION, even though we know for a fact that this would make the recession worse. Conservatives are all about feel-good crap with no basis in reality.

Remember the Iraq invasion? Was it feelings or empirical evidence that said Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction"? "He tried to kill my daddy" doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Don't get me started on that creationism crap you people are trying to teach in schools. Let me guess-- there's no empirical evidence for evolution right? :awe::awe::awe:

 

[Amused]

LOL. Right, that's why conservatives oppose stimulus and want to reduce spending to the point that we have a surplus during a RECESSION, even though we know for a fact that this would make the recession worse. Conservatives are all about feel-good crap with no basis in reality.

Nearly the entire world shunned stimulus programs and instead choose austerity paths. There is little difference in the outcome of their economies, and those who choose stimulus. In fact, most of Western Europe (the folks the left hold up as a shining example) choose austerity. There IS no empirical evidence that increasing the size and spending of the federal government stimulates the economy. Quote the opposite, as a matter of fact, as the tremendous debt and increasing government creates uncertainty among the private sector, causing growth to slow.

Remember the Iraq invasion? Was it feelings or empirical evidence that said Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction"? "He tried to kill my daddy" doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Every country with intel in Iraq held the same position that they were hiding and or developing WMDs. Even Russia and France who opposed invasion agreed that they either had, or were developing WMDs. This is the absurdity behind the "Bush lied" mantra mindlessly bleated by the left. If Bush lied, so did every other country with an intelligence organization.

Don't get me started on that creationism crap you people are trying to teach in schools. Let me guess-- there's no empirical evidence for evolution right? :awe::awe::awe:

Nice try. Why, if one is a fiscal conservative they MUST be a religious nutball, right? RIGHT??? I mean, that's the only way you can cling to your myopic world view.

 

[Amused]

The greenhouse effect isn't theoretical bullshit. It's physics. You can test it in a lab.

Again, the Earth's atmosphere and climate has NEVER been successfully modeled, thus any effect is UNKNOWN.

 

[Throckmorton]

Again, the Earth's atmosphere and climate has NEVER been successfully modeled, thus any effect is UNKNOWN.

I don't think you understand what a model is. A model tries to approximate reality but can't possibly be 100% precise. That's true about not just climate models, but also car accident modeling, weather modeling, every kind of modeling used by engineers. And I bet you trust modern cars to not cause you undue harm in an accident, you watch the weather report, and you follow the towing specifications for your truck.

The basic thermodynamics predicts warming as a result of the 40% increase in CO2, and we have had abnormal warming over the last century.

Read NASA's climate site if you're interested in actual science vs denialism
http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

[Amused]

I don't think you understand what a model is. A model tries to approximate reality but can't possibly be 100% precise. That's true about not just climate models, but also car accident modeling, weather modeling, every kind of modeling used by engineers. And I bet you trust modern cars to not cause you undue harm in an accident, you watch the weather report, and you follow the towing specifications for your truck.

The basic thermodynamics predicts warming as a result of the 40% increase in CO2, and we have had abnormal warming over the last century.

Read NASA's climate site if you're interested in actual science vs denialism
http://climate.nasa.gov/

Again, EVERY climate model has been not only demonstrably wrong, but biased wildly in favor of a preconcieved outcome.

You can theorize all day what a little extra CO2 will cause, but you, nor any scientist, can accurately predict what it will do.

Abnormal warming? Bullshit. The medieval period saw warmer temps. Another bullshit lie that's been put out by the folks who make obviously biased models.

 

[Throckmorton]

Again, EVERY climate model has been not only demonstrably wrong, but biased wildly in favor of a preconcieved outcome.

You can theorize all day what a little extra CO2 will cause, but you, nor any scientist, can accurately predict what it will do.

Abnormal warming? Bullshit. The medieval period saw warmer temps. Another bullshit lie that's been put out by the folks who make obviously biased models.

Apparently your denialist bloggers and/or Sarah Palin forgot to tell you that the Medieval Warm Period was a local climate aberration, not a global warming.