Global Warming debate heating up!

[Yonivore]

It seems to me - and it may just be an impression - that more and more people are starting to ask the right questions about the "done deal" that Al Gore and others have presented to us. I think that's important and, in some respects, courageous. Those who doubt the accepted wisdom have, after all, been compared to Holocaust deniers.

The Washington Times has a thoughtful piece (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001) on the subject, raising questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the lead agency driving the new religion:


In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
And...


Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
This is an excellent piece, well worth reading. Before we spend zillions of dollars to correct a problem, maybe we should do a better job of defining it, or determining whether it even exists.

And, in related news:

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html)

Finally, Weather Channel founder suggests (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html) suing Al Gore for fraud.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm all for pollution control regardless of what the studies say. I'd rather be proactive and less pollution is a good thing. I believe the costs will be smaller to act now than later.
But that is just me.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

global warming http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

global warming debate :lmaohttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif:rollinhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gifhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

whew. thanks i needed that.

[jcrod]

Bush Asked for weaker smog standard.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/dirty.air.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Environmental Protection Agency agreed to weaken an important part of its new smog requirements after being told at the last minute that President Bush preferred a less stringent approach, according to government documents.


They show tense exchanges between the EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget in the days before the smog air quality standard was announced Wednesday.

Changes directed by the White House were made only hours before the agency issued the regulation. The late activity forced the EPA to delay the announcement for five hours.

The disagreement concerned the amount of protection from ozone, or smog, that should be afforded wildlife, farmlands, parks and open spaces.

This "public welfare" or "secondary" smog standard is separate from a decision to tighten the smog requirements for human health, which the EPA decided to do by reducing the allowable concentrations of ozone in the air from 80 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.

The revised human health standard has gotten all the attention. But the most contentious fighting involved the public welfare standard, according to papers inserted in the EPA regulatory docket Thursday.

The memos and documents indicate that EPA officials had wanted to make the public welfare standard more stringent than the health standard, although still not as protective as some scientists had recommended.


But the White House insisted on making both standards identical, according to the documents. When EPA officials balked, the issue went to Bush, who sided with his budget office.

The White House defended Bush's action.

"This is not a weakening of regs (regulations) or standards," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday. "But it was an effort to make the standards consistent. There's no question we have an interest in how federal regs impact communities."

Fratto said the new standards are the "most stringent smog standards in history" and that communities will have a hard time meeting them. He described the area where Bush intervened as 'a technical matter' and said he acted on the advice of the Justice Department.

The White House's involvement was first reported by The Washington Post.

Susan Dudley, head of OMB's Information and Regulatory Affairs, alluded to Bush's involvement in a last- minute memo to EPA chief Stephen Johnson.

"The president has concluded that consistent with administration policy, added protection should be afford to public welfare by strengthening the secondary ozone standard and setting it to be identical to the new primary standard," she wrote. It should not be weaker or more stronger than the human health standard, the OMB insisted.

Although the memo was dated Thursday, it was faxed to the EPA on Wednesday, hours before the agency announced the rule. Parts of the memo were included in the rule's preamble posted on the EPA Web site.

"Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt," said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private advocacy group. "It is unprecedented and an unlawful act of political interference."

Dudley, in a March 6 memo, had questioned the EPA's justification for have a stronger smog requirement for public welfare than for human health.

The "public welfare" -- or secondary -- standard is fashioned in a way to protect against long-term harm to the environment. The limits on ozone under this standard are likely to have more impact on rural areas than urban centers.

Environmentalists and ecologists have argued that the standard should be more stringent than the human health ozone standard.

Last year the EPA staff and a scientific advisory panel on clean air concluded that protection of forests, agricultural lands and the ecosystem requires a "substantially different" ozone standard from the one for protecting human health.

In recent weeks the Agriculture Department has weighed in against making the public welfare ozone standard tougher. The department expressed concerns about the impact additional pollution controls might have on agriculture and development of biofuels, especially ethanol.

The department made its concerns known to OMB. EPA officials said the need was clear for a different standard for public welfare and that drifting ozone pollution has been found to cause "adverse effects" on agricultural crops, forests and vegetation

[Yonivore]

I'm all for pollution control regardless of what the studies say. I'd rather be proactive and less pollution is a good thing. I believe the costs will be smaller to act now than later.
But that is just me.
You do, of course, realize the global warming debate isn't about pollution, right?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

[JoeChalupa]

You do, of course, realize the global warming debate isn't about pollution, right?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

In all honesty I don't pay too much attention to it. Just don't mess with Texas.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You do, of course, realize the global warming debate isn't about pollution, right?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.whoa. whoa. whoa. ease up on those facts, now.

[Yonivore]

In all honesty I don't pay too much attention to it. Just don't mess with Texas.
Well, that's the problem with a lot of people who've signed on to this "Global War....damn it, I meant, "Global Climate Change" hysteria; they don't pay attention.

You've got a made-up phenomenon (Anthropogenic global climate change caused by excess carbon dioxide) and then you've got a real problem, human-emitted toxic pollutants.

Finally, the science is getting out that debunks the first and, quite frankly, we've had a pretty good handle on the second for quite some time now.

[JoeChalupa]

I've been anti-pollution since I was a kid. I recycle, don't drive a gas guzzler. Don't use paper towels or plates, etc. I know it may not sound like much but one grain of rice can tip the scales.
But I do believe that mankind has hurt the environment and that mankind is its own worse enemy.

[Yonivore]

I've been anti-pollution since I was a kid. I recycle, don't drive a gas guzzler. Don't use paper towels or plates, etc. I know it may not sound like much but one grain of rice can tip the scales.
But I do believe that mankind has hurt the environment and that mankind is its own worse enemy.
And, once again, this thread isn't about pollution.

[JoeChalupa]

And, once again, this thread isn't about pollution.

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking with it. :p:

[Yonivore]

Well, that's my story and I'm sticking with it. :p:
Okay, Joe...bumble along now.

[JoeChalupa]

Okay, Joe...bumble along now.

And you do the same as always.

[Yonivore]

And you do the same as always.
Hey, I'm not the one who stepped into a thread about oranges and started talking about apples.

[fyatuk]

You do, of course, realize the global warming debate isn't about pollution, right?

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

Actually, I believe it has been defined as such in US law.

Either way, we should work to reduce carbon emissions anyway, since we know mass global warming is at least a possible effect of too much CO2, etc. Just don't break the bank to do it.

[JoeChalupa]

What I do know is that it is awfully hot today for being March 14.

[Extra Stout]

What I do know is that it is awfully hot today for being March 14.
***FALLACY ALERT***

[Yonivore]

What I do know is that it is awfully hot today for being March 14.
And, like a goose, you have no idea what that means. Tomorrow will be a new day...Lucky you.

[Yonivore]

Actually, I believe it has been defined as such in US law.
That doesn't make it a pollutant.


Either way, we should work to reduce carbon emissions anyway, since we know mass global warming is at least a possible effect of too much CO2, etc.
Why? What if...just saying...what if it is determined that CO2 is the only thing keeping us from plunging into the next ice age?

I don't buy that either; in fact, I don't believe anthropogenic influences on climate have any effect whatsoever.


Just don't break the bank to do it.
That's exactly what most, if not all, proposals to control global warming -- Kyoto being the prime example -- would do.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

since we know mass global warming is at least a possible effect of too much CO2, etc.clearly an inconvenient lie.

[fyatuk]

That doesn't make it a pollutant.


Legally, it is. Whether it should be or not is another story, and one I don't have the scientific knowledge to address. The point is, that since it legally has been defined as a pollutant, merely saying it's not is pointless.


Why? What if...just saying...what if it is determined that CO2 is the only thing keeping us from plunging into the next ice age?

I don't buy that either; in fact, I don't believe anthropogenic influences on climate have any effect whatsoever.


Your first argument is that same as GCC alarmists. A mass what-if scenario. As such, it is not worth taking seriously.

What we know is that carbon dioxide does indeed influence temperature by trapping radiant heating from light. Therefore, many global warming disaster scenarios are possible in the (extremely) long term and we should not let CO2 levels rise as they will. Unless you care to claim that man has nothing to do with CO2 levels, man-made GCC is a proven possibility (and yes I'm aware that sounds weird).

Slowly increasing regulated controls combined with a tiny tax breaks for lowering emissions and contributing to research geared towards lowering emissions is a good approach. Which is what Bush & Co is doing.


That's exactly what most, if not all, proposals to control global warming -- Kyoto being the prime example -- would do.

And that's why I do not support them.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, I believe it has been defined as such in US law.

Either way, we should work to reduce carbon emissions anyway, since we know mass global warming is at least a possible effect of too much CO2, etc. Just don't break the bank to do it.
Yes, it has been legally deemed a pollutant. There are some realistic reasons to do this, but a level for that designation should have been established at perhaps 2000 ppm. At about 2%, it does start to interfere with the respiration of life on earth, and at about 3% it becomes toxic. Other pollutants actually are known to cause real health issues. CO2 doesn't until it reached these levels that interfere with respiration. CO2 is a good thing, but too much of anything is bad. Just like water is necessary for life, but if you drink too much, you can die.

Still, the degree of output by man would have to radically increase to achieve these levels. I heard something like 20 times because of natures balancing act. The oceans contain the largest amount of CO2. It absorbs it out of the atmosphere it cools and releases the unconverted CO2 back into the air as it warms. The numbers I have seen are on the order of 18 to 28 ppm per C by various studies. Part of the absorbed CO2 is converted to various carbon compounds that become benign.

As for global warming by CO2... It already causes at least about 90% of the warming it is capable of. Farther increases do cause more warming, but at a far lower degree than the alarmists claim. Then on top of that, nature has a funny way of regulating herself, like more clouds and more precipitation.

CO2 is a good thing!

[Nbadan]

Meanwhile, back in reality...


The world's glaciers are melting faster than at any time since records began, threatening catastrophe for hundreds of millions of people and their eco-systems.

The details are revealed in the latest report from the World Glacier Monitoring Service and will add to growing alarm about the rise in sea levels and increased instances of flooding, avalanches and drought.

Based on historical records and other evidence, the rate at which the glaciers are melting is also thought to be faster that at any time in the past 5,000 years, said Professor Wilfried Haeberli, director of the monitoring service. 'There's no absolute proof, but nevertheless the evidence is strong: this is really extraordinary.'

Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever 'net loss' of ice. Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told The Observer that melting glaciers were now the 'loudest and clearest' warning signal of global warming.

The problem could lead to failing infrastructure, mass migration and even conflict. 'We're talking about something that happens in your and my lifespan. We're not talking about something hypothetical, we're talking about something dramatic in its consequences,' he said

Lester Brown, of the influential US-based Earth Policy Institute, said the problem would have global ramifications, as farmers in China and India struggled to irrigate their crops.

'This is the biggest predictable effect on food security in history as far as I know,' said Brown.

guardian

Nothing to see here...move along...

[Wild Cobra]

Experts have been monitoring 30 glaciers around the world for nearly three decades and the most recent figures, for 2006, show the biggest ever 'net loss' of ice.
Dan, 2006 is the past. Not the prsent, and this melt has been explained to my satisfaction. The current trend has record growths of ice.

Love how you include a broken link.