Why people don't believe scientists predictions of doom....

[moda0306]

Actually doodle,

CO2 being labeled as a pollutant is what is going to give the EPA the ability to regulate it… This is actually a pretty big piece to the debate.

I would say that to the degree that anything has an adverse effect on the environment, it could easily be labeled a pollutant. But that is just how I think of it.  Transmission fluid is vital to my transmission, but a pollutant to my engine if I were to cordon the oil spout.  Once again, this is just how I interpret the word.

[Mountaineer]

No one [moda?] claims that CO2 is a pollutant....that is a strawman. It is however a gas which plays an important role in regulating the temperature of our climate. I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea for scientists to study this....we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on climate research. That is peanuts. While some of the scientists predictions might be overly dramatic, I think one beneficial side effect is that it at least makes us conscious of the fact that our behavior does impact the environment and that we should be trying to continuously innovate ways to produce energy in a fashion that is less destructive to our planets ecosystem.

doodle,

Two great posts from you today.

... Mountaineer

[Xan]

Supreme Court case.  Holding: "Holding Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachus ... ion_Agency

[Benko]

No one claims that CO2 is a pollutant....that is a strawman. It is however a gas which plays an important role in regulating the temperature of our climate. I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea for scientists to study this....we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on climate research. That is peanuts. While some of the scientists predictions might be overly dramatic, I think one beneficial side effect is that it at least makes us conscious of the fact that our behavior does impact the environment and that we should be trying to continuously innovate ways to produce energy in a fashion that is less destructive to our planets ecosystem.

Doodle.  COngratulations for a very reasonable post.

One minor quibble:

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant",
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pol ... vanced.htm

From the same website that many (apparently) use a refernce to refute criticism of climate stuff.  If you just google carbox dioxide and pollutant, you'll find others e.g. WSJ how carbon dioxide became a pollutant

I agree with you.  It is silly to list it as a pollutant.  However the left is superbly skilled and so carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the quest to get their way. The same way that conservatives are by definnition "extreme". 

[Mountaineer]

Supreme Court case.  Holding: "Holding Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachus ... ion_Agency

You think regulations on CO2 emissions are bad (i.e. regulating my exhaled breath) is bad, just wait until water vapor starts being attacked.  Won't even be able to pee.

Greenhouse gas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.show/hide details
Page protected with pending changes level 1
refer to caption and image description

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface. Energy influx and emittance are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

As far as environmental regulation I think it's important to remember how bad things were getting in the 60s and 70s. Industry and local municipal governments were dumping toxic waste with abandon into rivers and lakes all over the country. I just talked at length with one guy who was responsible for cleaning up Tampa Bay back in the 70s. He said the bay was on the verge of being totally dead until the EPA came in and forced its cleanup.

Quite so.  But the low-hanging fruit was gathered long ago.  Even Lake Eire now has fish.  And rivers don't burn any more.

The problem now is that the bureaucratic machinery developed to address that admittedly good purpose needs something to do.  So they extend the legislation with more and more regulations, discovering all sorts of things that need regulating that Congress, I am sure, never intended to regulate.  CO2 as a pollutant is so bureaucratic/political and so not biological/scientific it is not funny.

The law of diminishing returns!

http://www.answers.com/topic/law-of-diminishing-returns

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

No one claims that CO2 is a pollutant....that is a strawman. It is however a gas which plays an important role in regulating the temperature of our climate. I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea for scientists to study this....we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on climate research. That is peanuts. While some of the scientists predictions might be overly dramatic, I think one beneficial side effect is that it at least makes us conscious of the fact that our behavior does impact the environment and that we should be trying to continuously innovate ways to produce energy in a fashion that is less destructive to our planets ecosystem.

Doodle.  COngratulations for a very reasonable post.

One minor quibble:

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant",
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pol ... vanced.htm

From the same website that many (apparently) use a refernce to refute criticism of climate stuff.  If you just google carbox dioxide and pollutant, you'll find others e.g. WSJ how carbon dioxide became a pollutant

I agree with you.  It is silly to list it as a pollutant.  However the left is superbly skilled and so carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the quest to get their way. The same way that conservatives are by definnition "extreme". 

Legal definitions always get twisted around.....the park by my house has a sign that says "no motorized vehicles"....does that mean that a grandma in her electric wheelchair is forbidden to enter the park with her grandchildren? No scientist is so dumb as to not understand the role that CO2 plays in our planet. They all understand the dynamics of the carbon cycle.....the rest is just political bullshit.

Supreme Court case.  Holding: "Holding Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachus ... ion_Agency

You think regulations on CO2 emissions are bad (i.e. regulating my exhaled breath) is bad, just wait until water vapor starts being attacked.  Won't even be able to pee.

Greenhouse gas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.show/hide details
Page protected with pending changes level 1
refer to caption and image description

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface. Energy influx and emittance are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).

... Mountaineer

Scientists realize the important role that CO2 plays....however currently the earth is not energy neutral. We are trapping more heat energy than we are releasing and due to the melting of glacial ice the reflectivity of the surface of the earth is also diminishing not to mention unlocking large amounts of methane emitting tundra. This is a complicated situation that I think merits attention.

I think it is definitely preferable to have a warmer planet than to sink into anther ice age....that would certainly lead to massive starvation and chaos. Either way, I think scientists need to continue to study this. I also thin they should dedicate resources to studying other forms of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts etc etc...

[Mountaineer]

No one claims that CO2 is a pollutant....that is a strawman. It is however a gas which plays an important role in regulating the temperature of our climate. I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea for scientists to study this....we spend about 2 billion dollars a year on climate research. That is peanuts. While some of the scientists predictions might be overly dramatic, I think one beneficial side effect is that it at least makes us conscious of the fact that our behavior does impact the environment and that we should be trying to continuously innovate ways to produce energy in a fashion that is less destructive to our planets ecosystem.

Doodle.  COngratulations for a very reasonable post.

One minor quibble:

"Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant",
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pol ... vanced.htm

From the same website that many (apparently) use a refernce to refute criticism of climate stuff.  If you just google carbox dioxide and pollutant, you'll find others e.g. WSJ how carbon dioxide became a pollutant

I agree with you.  It is silly to list it as a pollutant.  However the left is superbly skilled and so carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the quest to get their way. The same way that conservatives are by definnition "extreme". 

Legal definitions always get twisted around.....the park by my house has a sign that says "no motorized vehicles"....does that mean that a grandma in her electric wheelchair is forbidden to enter the park with her grandchildren? No scientist is so dumb as to not understand the role that CO2 plays in our planet. They all understand the dynamics of the carbon cycle.....the rest is just political bullshit.

Supreme Court case.  Holding: "Holding Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachus ... ion_Agency

You think regulations on CO2 emissions are bad (i.e. regulating my exhaled breath) is bad, just wait until water vapor starts being attacked.  Won't even be able to pee.

Greenhouse gas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.show/hide details
Page protected with pending changes level 1
refer to caption and image description

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface. Energy influx and emittance are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).

... Mountaineer

Scientists realize the important role that CO2 plays....however currently the earth is not energy neutral. We are trapping more heat energy than we are releasing and due to the melting of glacial ice the reflectivity of the surface of the earth is also diminishing not to mention unlocking large amounts of methane emitting tundra. This is a complicated situation that I think merits attention.

I think it is definitely preferable to have a warmer planet than to sink into anther ice age....that would certainly lead to massive starvation and chaos. Either way, I think scientists need to continue to study this. I also thin they should dedicate resources to studying other forms of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts etc etc...

This one makes it a trifecta. 

... Mountaineer

Edited to add:  I like the way you think.  There is a HUGE difference between scientists STUDYING and politicans RAMMING uneconomical half-assed solutions down our throats for low probability events with high probability of unforseen or unintended consequences that are worse than the problem trying to be solved. 

[goodasgold]

I think it is definitely preferable to have a warmer planet than to sink into anther ice age....that would certainly lead to massive starvation and chaos....

Let's think positive. NOW is the time to buy that coconut plantation on the shores of Hudson Bay! Hey, who stole my sunscreen?

[WildAboutHarry]

Scientists realize the important role that CO2 plays....however currently the earth is not energy neutral. We are trapping more heat energy than we are releasing and due to the melting of glacial ice the reflectivity of the surface of the earth is also diminishing not to mention unlocking large amounts of methane emitting tundra. This is a complicated situation that I think merits attention.

Virtually all of the carbon on earth has always been here.  Biology (and some chemical processes) changed a big bunch of it into organic carbon compounds, carbonate rocks, etc., lowering atmospheric C02 levels.  Historically atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher (remember the Coal Age Diorama at the natural history museum?).

The inconvenient truth in all of this is the way one explains how, not so long ago, quite a bit of the northern hemisphere was covered in a thick sheet of ice (reflectivity on maximum), had tundra extending from the edge of that ice sheet, and a sea level about 400' below what it is today.  How did all of that reverse itself?  Normal cycles?  Solar radiation variation?  What happened to all the methane released when the continental glaciers started their retreat?

I think the study of this is fascinating.  I think basing political/economic decisions on this is madness.

All I know is that climate changes, and has been changing, over all of earth's history. 

[doodle]

I don't think it's too radical an idea to look at this chart and come to the conclusion that the pattern of atmospheric CO2 over the last million years has been broken. Sure, it's been higher in the past (that's why you can find prehistoric sea shells right in Americas prime farming country today) but not for the entire time that humans have been around and not at a time when our population numbers have exploded and the majority of the worlds population lives in coastal regions. This issue should be a concern that isn't lightly dismissed....it's a serious issue.

For those who deny AGW, what in your opinion would account for the massive spike over the last 100 years? Are there any observable phenomena to account for this change other than the increased emissions from fossil fuels?

[img width=725 height=725]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... 2_800k.png[/img]

[Xan]

The corollary to that, of course, is that if CO2 is so important, and if it has doubled in concentration in the atmosphere (all the way up to 0.04%!) then why has there been so little warming that we can even argue whether or not it exists?  Most likely, because CO2 isn't as important as the models predict.  And, as has been pointed out, the models are without exception wrong and broken.

[doodle]

The corollary to that, of course, is that if CO2 is so important, and if it has doubled in concentration in the atmosphere (all the way up to 0.04%!) then why has there been so little warming that we can even argue whether or not it exists?  Most likely, because CO2 isn't as important as the models predict.  And, as has been pointed out, the models are without exception wrong and broken.

Scientists would argue that it has largely been sequestered in the oceans and if you look at the ocean ph levels, they are historically very low:



The ocean waters also act as a big heat sink which is able to absorb a lot of heat.

[doodle]

I think that the ice age predictions in the 70s were largely correct. Absent human activity I have read that the various factors that influence our climate should have us dipping back into another ice age....so in this regard, our CO2 emissions have been beneficial at staving that off (which would have been a huge calamity....remember that New York had about a mile of ice on top of it during the last ice age) ....but we need to be cognizant of how far in the other direction we are influencing things. If humans want to have dependable food supplies and relative security we need to make sure that our climate doesn't negatively impact us. With 7 billion people on this planet and growing we are highly dependent on a relatively stable climate.

[Pointedstick]

Wouldn't global warming portend more food security, rather than less? The plants will certainly be happy, since CO2 is one of their food sources. And if it causes cold northern climates to get warmer, an enormous amount of arable farmland will be uncovered, similar to what happened to northern Europe during the last warming period.

Of course, the hot areas will get hotter and some will become deserts. Again, just like the last warming period.

[doodle]

I don't know....do you? I would prefer that changes came gradually though and that we had some level of control over them as opposed to suddenly and with little preparation. I also know that we have gazillions of dollars of infrastructure sitting at sea level. It would be problematic to have to relocate 4 billion people.

[doodle]

Besides the environmental issues, I also disagree that fossil fuels are really economically cheaper when the majority of our military budget is devoted to keeping them flowing is some very sketchy areas of the world.

[Pointedstick]

I don't know....do you? I would prefer that changes came gradually though and that we had some level of control over them as opposed to suddenly and with little preparation. I also know that we have gazillions of dollars of infrastructure sitting at sea level. It would be problematic to have to relocate 4 billion people.

No, I don't know. But I can extrapolate from trends and patterns. The last time global warming happened, the fertile crescent and north Africa turned into deserts, but Northern Europe and America were transformed from frozen tundra to bountiful farmlands. As for control, I think it's an illusion. We want to think we're in control, when we usually aren't, especially for something as vast as the entire global climate. As most scientists admit, we're well path the point of no return and will likely will need to live with some amount of man-made warming beyond the normal background fluctuations. As for the practical implications… that's true. But nobody said life was fair. I bet the middle-eastern civilizations didn't particularly like it when their land dried up and became a desert 1,000 years ago. But it happened anyway and they simply had to live with it. Such is life.

Besides the environmental issues, I also disagree that fossil fuels are really economically cheaper when the majority of our military budget is devoted to keeping them flowing is some very sketchy areas of the world.

I agree, with the caveat that domestically-produced fossil fuels where you don't have to maintain foreign military bases and kill illiterate peasants to keep the black gold flowing likely really is quite cheap.

[doodle]

How do you price domestic oil and gas? Are you saying we should nationalize it and take it off the world oil markets?

what is suddenly? it seems to me climate change (even man made ones) happen on a time scale that is gradual in human terms. What is the change that has supposed to have happened so far? a fraction of a percent of a degree over 10 years? (or 20? or is it almost 30 now?) multiplied out it will take decades to be a single degree warmer and century's to achieve the global disaster, coastal city's vanishing under water that is being predicted..
unless i am misunderstanding the predictions/data it sounds like the "ATTACK OF THE SNAILS" oh no the water came up and the desert creeped north so slowly nobody saw it coming or acted and they all perished painfully over a hundred years...

if global warming gets its science cleaned up (freed from globalist progressive utopian dreams) and it proves to be true and predictable, it seems to me like it might be cheaper, easier and better for mankind to slowly move a gazilion dollars of infrastructure up hill than to try to change the climate or even implement any kind of change by way of political agendas.

[Pointedstick]

How do you price domestic oil and gas? Are you saying we should nationalize it and take it off the world oil markets?

Huh? I don't understand the leap you just made. You price it according to market forces: production cost - sale price = profit.

[doodle]

How do you price domestic oil and gas? Are you saying we should nationalize it and take it off the world oil markets?

Huh? I don't understand the leap you just made. You price it according to market forces: production cost - sale price = profit.

Well, the market price of domestic oil and gas for consumers is based on world oil market prices no matter how cheaply we can extract it from ground. If Middle East falls into chaos the price of our oil and gas will nonetheless rise whether or not it comes from international or domestic wells.....unless the government nationalizes it or uses price controls both of which I know you are against.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, it seems like people of all political persuasions find their doom gremlins to be scared of.  And I agree, right now the right seems a bit over-obsessed with Obama ruining the whole planet.  It seems like they're giving him just a bit too much credit, ironically.

I remember the same thing under Bush. Was he an evil megalomaniac bent on subjugating the world and stealing all the oil, or a borderline-illiterate trust fund kid failure at life being controlled by Dick Cheney?