Quote :

"Ergo, my point stands. Without the O2 from trees, humans don't have a way to exhale CO2."

your point was that humans need O2 from trees to exhale CO2?

i thought your point was that trees don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere, since you wrote:

Quote :

"The point was that trees DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere."

i have no idea why you even brought up animals needing O2, but i was correcting your statement that the CO2 they exhale came from the trees

i'm clearly confused about whatever it is you were trying to say, but honestly i'm pretty bright and very well-educated so you might want to do a better job forming your argument if i can't seem to follow along...

4/4/2009 2:04:46 AM

This thread is full of morons.

4/4/2009 10:03:51 AM

Quote :

"but i was correcting your statement that the CO2 they exhale came from the trees"

never said the CO2 came from the trees, but the O2 in the CO2 most certainly does.

4/5/2009 11:01:34 PM

Just so y'all know, last week was the kick off for the North Carolina Sea Level Rise Risk Assessment Study.
http://www.ncsealevelrise.com/

North Carolina has been identified by NOAA as one of three states that would be significantly vulnerable to a rise in sea levels. Therefore, NC has received some funding to try and figure out exactly what the economic/health/societal/environmental costs associated with various sea rise scenarios would be.

[Edited on April 6, 2009 at 6:32 AM. Reason : ``]

4/6/2009 6:32:16 AM

While I'm posting, here is a cost of sea level changes I never considered: the loss of the human historical record.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30014339/

I think these types of costs might be relatively significant in North Carolina, considering how much history is on our coasts.

4/6/2009 6:35:24 AM

Quote :

"North Carolina has been identified by NOAA as one of three states that would be significantly vulnerable to a rise in sea levels."

the sea level has been rising since the last ice age, this is new?

4/6/2009 1:22:53 PM

WATCH OUT AL GORE WANTS YOUR CARBON MONIES!!!!!!

4/6/2009 1:31:20 PM

^ OMG!!! HUR CONTINUES BEING AN ASSHOLE!!! OMG!!!\

^^ not only have they been rising, but they have been rising at *gasp* the exact same rate for the past thousand years!!! OMG!!!

4/6/2009 2:35:21 PM

So, just buy some land close to the beach. When you get ready to retire, you can sell it as beach front property. WIN!

4/6/2009 6:15:39 PM

probably not. by then some hippie will have labeled it wetlands in order to completely destroy the value of it so they can pick it up at a substantial discount

4/6/2009 6:16:53 PM

Quote :

"North Carolina has been identified by NOAA as one of three states that would be significantly vulnerable to a rise in sea levels. Therefore, NC has received some funding to try and figure out exactly what the economic/health/societal/environmental costs associated with various sea rise scenarios would be."

I wonder if they will be realistic or they will use some bullshit estimate like the 55 inches of sea level rise that California used in their study.

Just to remind everyone once again: The IPCC in it's 4th installment predicted a rise in sea levels of 7 to 23 inches, assuming that temperatures continue to rise. A sea level rise of 55 inches would be an incredible acceleration of current observed trends, and a rather outlandish prediction if I do say so myself. But if they only go with a rise of 7-23 inches, the predicted economic/health/societal/environmental costs will be lower. I'm guessing they will base their study on a silly number like 55 inches.

4/6/2009 6:34:14 PM

i know, right? nevermind that even with all of the OMFG warming we've had, the sea-level rise has still been a mm a year. what's 30 times 1mm? 30mm? yeah, that sounds like 7 inches

4/6/2009 6:36:52 PM

Quote :

" by then some hippie will have labeled it wetlands in order to completely destroy the value of it so they can pick it up at a substantial discount "

or George Bush III after getting elected in 2048 will have decided to put some oil rigs in front of your place.

4/6/2009 6:45:15 PM

yes, but at least he will have paid me for it

4/6/2009 6:49:32 PM

Prawn Star,

Actually, they will probably just use a range of the IPCC projections so that we can actually understand what the distribution of risks are. And that's kinda what this study is about.

John Whitehead (the App State economist who is leading up the socioeconomic workgroup on this latest study) published a study last year about climate change's impact on NC's coastal resources where he also used a range of IPCC projections (and did not include a 55 foot scenario).

Quote :

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that changes in the earth’s climate could raise global sea levels by one to more than two feet over the next 25 to 75 years. The researchers used the IPCC projections, along with county tax, recreation and travel, and fishing data to determine their findings.... A one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses over the next 75 years "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070622184644.htm

I used to have a copy of the study on my desktop, but i cant find it. Anyways, don't complain about how you think the idiotic hippie liberals will conduct the study without at least googling it first.

4/7/2009 8:01:45 AM

What's next? Are we going to try and stop the forces of plate tectonics?

4/7/2009 4:54:10 PM

Funny you should mention that. This isn't plate tectonics, but it is rather . . . um . . . unorthodox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."

4/8/2009 8:14:13 PM

4/8/2009 8:21:06 PM

^^lol, yeah I know tell me about it. I don't put a lot of stock in whatever Holdren says though.

Of course they could just ban CFCs, I believe they made some areas colder.

4/8/2009 9:38:01 PM

Quote :

"Actually, they will probably just use a range of the IPCC projections so that we can actually understand what the distribution of risks are. And that's kinda what this study is about."

Lets hope so. In California, they based their study on an estimate for sea level rise that was more than double what the IPCC projected in it's worst-case scenario. The IPCC predicted a rise of 18-59 centimeters over the next century, the "non-partisan" California study of costs associated with sea level rise used a projection of 1.4 meters. There is a pretty big difference there.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=awTyc3STunD4&refer=latin_america

Quote :

"John Whitehead (the App State economist who is leading up the socioeconomic workgroup on this latest study) published a study last year about climate change's impact on NC's coastal resources where he also used a range of IPCC projections (and did not include a 55 foot scenario). Quote : "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that changes in the earth’s climate could raise global sea levels by one to more than two feet over the next 25 to 75 years. The researchers used the IPCC projections, along with county tax, recreation and travel, and fishing data to determine their findings.... A one- to three-foot rise in sea level along four North Carolina coastal counties could mean billions of dollars in private property losses over the next 75 years " http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070622184644.htm "

thanks for the link.

Quote :

"I used to have a copy of the study on my desktop, but i cant find it. Anyways, don't complain about how you think the idiotic hippie liberals will conduct the study without at least googling it first."

Duly noted.

[Edited on April 9, 2009 at 2:35 AM. Reason : 2]

4/9/2009 2:35:22 AM

^ thanks for the info on the CA study. I had not heard about that before, but after doing so I can understand your concern with how the NC study will be conducted.

4/9/2009 7:58:05 AM

^^^I apologize. I meant to say unban CFCs. Also, of Holdren really wants to do that instead he could just remove the scrubbers off all the coal plants. Just deregulate the industry. You'll definitely get that sun blocking haze he so craves.

Quote :

"Sorry, But The Science Is Never 'Settled' By DAVID DEMING | Posted Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled. This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion. But Obama does not understand science. "Settled science" is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterizes science as "settled" or "indisputable" is ignorant not only of science, but also history and philosophy. Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known. He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology. Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were "the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry." Reasonable Reservations Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed skeptical concerns. But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle's dicta. The science was settled. Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong. He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously. Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed. The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo's contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus. Galileo is better remembered today for clashing with the Catholic Church over the issue of whether or not the Earth was at the center of the universe. An Earth-centered cosmology was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Eudoxus in the fourth century B.C. Impious Aristarchus About a hundred years later, an upstart named Aristarchus suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun. Aristarchus' system never proved popular, and he was criticized for being impious. The Earth-centered system was finalized by Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D., and remained unchallenged until the sixteenth century. Everyone knew that the science of astronomy had been settled "beyond dispute." When Galileo insisted that the Earth revolved around the sun, he was castigated by the church for advocating an idea that was not only heretical, but also "foolish and absurd in philosophy." Late in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton demonstrated definitively that Aristotle's physics were incorrect. He proposed the Law of Universal Gravitation, and explained how the planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits. Newton is still regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He settled the science of motion in such a conclusive way that his system was referred to as an "invincible edifice." But the edifice crumbled early in the twentieth century when Einstein showed that Newtonian physics break down as the speed of light is approached. Near the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Neptunian School of geology taught that all rocks had formed by crystallization from a now-vanished universal ocean. Although the evidence falsifying this theory was both plain and abundant, Neptunists interpreted every observation as supportive of their hypothesis. Blinded by an immoderate zeal, they selected and magnified any fact in accordance with their theory, while neglecting those that tended to disprove it. Robert Jameson characterized the evidence supporting Neptunism as "incontrovertible." But the theory collapsed in a few decades, and today is recognized as an artifact of inexhaustible human folly. The End Of History? President Obama, a lawyer and politician, would now have us believe that the process of history has stopped. For the first time, scientific knowledge is not provisional and subject to revision, but final and settled. Skepticism, which has been the spur to all innovation and human progress, is unacceptable and must be condemned. But in fact, it is our awareness of what we do not know that determines our scientific level. Socrates was the wisest man, not because he knew more than others, but because he was the only one to recognize that he did not know. Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit. Deming is a geologist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma."

[Edited on April 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : b]

4/9/2009 12:28:01 PM

meh, what does a geologist know about science that the messiah doesn't?

4/9/2009 8:28:52 PM

something something dinosaurs noah's ark

4/9/2009 10:11:36 PM

Oh look, the California Energy Commission wants to regulate what type of TV you can buy. Never would have seen that coming!

Quote :

"California state regulators, who have limited automobile emissions and required large utilities to increase use of renewable energy, now are taking aim at a ubiquitous household item - the television. Consumer demand for bigger, flatter and fancier TVs has dramatically increased the amount of energy needed to watch the tube, officials say. The California Energy Commission says a 42-inch plasma television uses more energy than a large refrigerator. To reduce the electrical draw from TVs, the commission has proposed the nation's first mandatory energy limits on televisions - limits that many large LCD and plasma TVs on the market do not meet."

Honestly is anyone surprised? I'm all for more efficient appliances, but what's the problem with letting people do it voluntarily? It's just another step down the road to being told what we can and can't have.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/04/14/MNT516V87T.DTL

4/14/2009 7:21:18 PM

I'll bet this has the support of Hollywood, since HD and bigger TVs brings out imperfections a whole lot better

4/14/2009 10:51:27 PM

^^ Because the people who are willing to voluntarily lower the quality of their life for the sake of the environment have already done so, and apparently its not enough for California.

Instead of setting limits for power consumption, I would prefer they tax the purchase of the TV set when its bought, based on its power consumption. Maybe thats more bureaucreatic work?

4/15/2009 9:52:23 AM

I'd prefer if they didn't try to exert control over people's lives in the name of a great hoax.

4/15/2009 2:19:35 PM

^ I agree with that, for sure. But, I could certainly get behind that ^^, too

4/16/2009 12:23:20 AM

Quote :

"Instead of setting limits for power consumption, I would prefer they tax the purchase of the TV set when its bought, based on its power consumption. Maybe thats more bureaucreatic work?"

Well, you could always cut the middleman and simply tax power production at the source based upon its carbon emissions. Then we can avoid all the fuss about figuring out how to tax each and every new TV.

Almost like a... carbon... tax...

Too simple?

4/16/2009 12:28:21 AM

So the Sun has apparently been very quite the last few years and if the trend continues we could be entering a (compared to last 100 years) very cold period.

Quote :

"Today we are 15 days into April without a sunspot and with 603 sunspotless day this cycle minimum, 92 already this year. 2009 at this rate, is likely to enter the top 10 years the last century along with 2007 (9th) and 2008 (2nd) this summer...This would be very like cycles 1 to 4 in the late 1700s and early 1800s, preceding the Dalton Minimum...That was a cold era, the age of Dickens and the children playing in the snow in London, much like this past winter."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/update_sun_and_ice/

4/16/2009 8:50:53 PM

Quote :

"Well, you could always cut the middleman and simply tax power production at the source based upon its carbon emissions. Then we can avoid all the fuss about figuring out how to tax each and every new TV. Almost like a... carbon... tax... Too simple?"

No, because the point here is taxing unneccesary, frivolous power consumption. Not all consumption.

4/16/2009 10:20:12 PM

Quote :

"No, because the point here is taxing unneccesary, frivolous power consumption. Not all consumption."

Because only "frivolous" power consumption generates CO2?

Oh... kay...

4/16/2009 10:31:12 PM

no, but "frivolous" consumption makes up a lot of our consumption today. Like people who open a window while they have their a/c on.

^^^ you know those guys were paid off by the oil industry.
Besides, it's obvious that natural climate variability is causing this, but as soon as that passes, we'll be in the throws of global climate change for real!

4/16/2009 11:19:55 PM

^^Uh, exactly what point are you trying to make?

4/16/2009 11:29:29 PM

I would think my point would be obvious, but whatever. Instead of deciding what's "frivolous" and what's not (especially given that this is both subjective and resource-intensive), one can simply discourage frivolous behavior by raising the cost of waste on the margin.

However, given that our point is to reduce the impact of electricity usage, it seems more prudent to simply do this overall, rather than to police just who exactly is being "frivolous" and who is not. Because, once again - somehow I doubt pollution is produced only when electricity gets used "frivolously."

4/17/2009 2:11:53 AM

Hey, check out the result of "adjustments" to the urban-heat-island adjustment that USED to be used in GISS data (you know, Hansen's department). Notice anything odd?



And wow. just... fucking... wow...
March 30th, 2009: maybe the day Global Warming died.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf

While the first page is damning in its own right, check this out:

Quote :

"Red flag 37: Nor is there a shred of evidence that sea level will imminently rise by 20 ft, as suggested by Al Gore in 2005. Gore cannot have believed his own prediction: that year he bought a $4 million apartment in the St. Regis Tower, San Francisco, just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf. (emphasis added) As the London High Court bluntly found in 2007, “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.”"

Before you bash Monckton as some "non-scientist," read his fucking letter. That is the most evidentially supported piece I have ever seen written by a politician. And, mind you, note that that IPCC, upon which we base much of this alarmism, is equally composed of politicians.

Also, note Red Flag 9: The Endpoint Fallacy.

Quote :

"Lies, damned lies, & statistics: The IPCC’s 2007 report, cited in a science lecture by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC’s science working group, and also about to be cited with approval in a “Technical Support Document” in justification of the EPA’s imminent finding that CO2 and five other gases are jointly or severally “dangerous” in terms of the Clean Air Act, contains the above graph purporting to show that the rate at which the world is warming is inexorably increasing. The graph is an egregious instance of the endpoint fallacy, a dishonest abuse of statistics by which false trends are demonstrated by careful selection of endpoints or (in the present instance) startpoints when evaluating data trends. [Graphic here showing point] Removal of the IPCC’s false trend-lines from the data reveals the true position [Graphic here showing point] The truth: 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 warmed just as fast as 1975-1998 No anthropogenic signal: The world warmed at the same rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940 as it did from 1975-1998 (see the three parallel magenta trend-lines). The former two periods occurred before humankind can possibly have had any significant influence on temperature. Therefore there is no anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record, and no basis for the IPCC’s assertion that the warming rate is accelerating."

This can be found on Page 9 of the PDF

Wow, he even slaughters the "OMG THE OCEANS ARE ACIDIFYING" argument

Quote :

"Red flag 50: Finally, Representative Inslee, supported by one or two members of his party, said that ocean acidification was becoming a problem and asked me whether I was concerned about it. There is no need for concern: carbon dioxide concentration has been at least 1000 ppmv (compared with <400 ppmv today) for most of the last 600 million years, without ill effects on marine life. Indeed, the calcite corals first appeared in the Cambrian era, when carbon dioxide concentration was 7000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001); and the more delicate aragonite corals first appeared in the Triassic era, when the concentration was 6500 ppmv (IPCC, 2001). Representative Inslee said the corals had now become accustomed to low concentrations of carbon dioxide and would be unable to adapt to increasing acidification of the oceans. However, he did not adduce any scientific data to back this insupportable assertion. The biochemistry of bicarbonate ions is such that powerful homoeostatic mechanisms, some of them only recently discovered, prevent acidification of the oceans. Indeed, even the most imaginative models (in the absence of the worldwide monitoring and sampling over time that would be necessary to arrive at a fair empirical result) do not find that the reduction in ocean alkalinity (the ocean remains safely alkaline) is more than about 0.1 acid/base units. Without objection, Representative Inslee agreed that I might enter into the record a short book written by my distinguished friend Dr. Craig Idso, summarizing the extensive literature that gives the lie to the notion that “ocean acidification” is a real danger. It is not."

4/17/2009 3:33:26 AM

Uh, I was willing to read until I got to here, where it's obvious he's distorting the available scientific evidence:

Quote :

"There is no need for concern: carbon dioxide concentration has been at least 1000 ppmv (compared with <400 ppmv today) for most of the last 600 million years, without ill effects on marine life."

1. Scientists have found mixed effects upon coral-based fauna; some have done as well, some have shown a marked decrease in factors like shell thickness. This is something which - surprise! We can actually test in a laboratory. But we can and have documented effects upon marine life.

2. We have seen a marked increase in the last 100 years of CO2 partial pressure and in ocean carbon dissolution. Cherrypicking the start and end points - the very sin this guy is criticizing the IPCC of doing - is exactly what is going on here.

Quote :

"Indeed, the calcite corals first appeared in the Cambrian era, when carbon dioxide concentration was 7000 ppmv (IPCC, 2001); and the more delicate aragonite corals first appeared in the Triassic era, when the concentration was 6500 ppmv (IPCC, 2001)."

The question at hand is sensitivity to ocean pH. Which, conveniently enough, is something we can test in a lab if we're not sure.

Furthermore, again, I feel it necessary to repeat this point - each coral responds differently. There has not been a universal response; this is what the science is saying. Some corals do just fine - even thrive. Others suffer. This has a direct correlation with ocean pH.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

Quote :

"Indeed, even the most imaginative models (in the absence of the worldwide monitoring and sampling over time that would be necessary to arrive at a fair empirical result) do not find that the reduction in ocean alkalinity (the ocean remains safely alkaline) is more than about 0.1 acid/base units."

This is fairly misleading. "Only" 0.1 pH unit is... 30%, given that it's a logarithmic scale.

From the above link:

Quote :

"The chemistry is very straight-forward: ocean acidification is linearly related to the amount of CO2 we produce. CO2 dissolves in the ocean, reacts with seawater and decreases the pH. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic (from 8.2 pH to 8.1 pH). "Under a "business as usual scenario, predictions for the end of the century are that we will lower the surface ocean pH by 0.4 pH units, which means that the surface oceans will become 150 percent more acidic -- and this is a 'hell of a lot' ", said Jelle Bijma, chair of the EuroCLIMATE programme Scientific Committee and a biogeochemist at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Bremerhaven."

I mean, let's step back here, for a moment. Right now, what exactly is the counter-hypothesis? That we're not putting CO2 into the air at a tremendous and accelerating rate? That CO2 magically disappears, and does not dissolve into the ocean? Despite the evidence to the contrary?

Leaving that aside, one has to look at the timescales involved as well. Rapid gradients of CO2 partial pressures are what is really an object of concern.

Quote :

"Ocean acidification is more rapid than ever in the history of the earth and if you look at the pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) levels we have reached now, you have to go back 35 million years in time to find the equivalents" continued Bijma. A maximum allowed change in pH, where the system is still controllable, needs to be found. This is a major challenge considering the multifaceted unknowns that still are to be clarified. This so-called "tipping point" is currently estimated to allow a drop of about 0.2 pH units, a value that could be reached in as near as 30 years. More research and further modeling needs to be undertaken to verify the predictions."

You know, if you want to make the case that somebody is "abusing science" for their own agenda, you may want to, you know, not also abuse the science.

Oh hey, and remember those aragonite corals the guy says are "fine, just fine?" Well, turns out they're not. Whoops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification#Acidification

Quote :

"Although the largest changes are expected in the future,[2] a report from NOAA scientists found large quantities of water undersaturated in aragonite are already upwelling close to the Pacific continental shelf area of North America.[11]"

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM. Reason : Aragonite]

4/17/2009 11:20:22 AM

Quote :

"However, given that our point is to reduce the impact of electricity usage, it seems more prudent to simply do this overall, rather than to police just who exactly is being "frivolous" and who is not. Because, once again - somehow I doubt pollution is produced only when electricity gets used "frivolously.""

No one is trying to say that only frivolous energy creates pollution.

Taxing all energy usage is just going to raise the costs on essential energy like heating, lighting, etc. Taxing these things would do more harm than good, affecting people who are already being frugal with their energy usage. Thus, we look for areas of usage that are non-essential and try to reduce those.

4/17/2009 11:31:33 AM

Quote :

"Taxing all energy usage is just going to raise the costs on essential energy like heating, lighting, etc. Taxing these things would do more harm than good, affecting people who are already being frugal with their energy usage. Thus, we look for areas of usage that are non-essential and try to reduce those."

It doesn't matter if people are being "frugal" or not - energy usage has a social impact. Whether or not energy is being "wasted" on a creature comfort or home lighting makes no difference - each of them consumes energy from the same source with the same consequence.

What you are effectively proposing is the right to step in and arbitrate whose energy use you approve of and whose you don't.

Meanwhile, if your concern is just "excessive" energy usage, it still doesn't justify a massive, resource-intensive intervention like this. One could still come up with an alternative pricing scheme for residential usage, like a system of "tiered" rates which progressively grow higher at fixed intervals in order to discourage more "marginal" usage of electricity.

But frankly, I don't think that's the problem you're interested in solving.

4/17/2009 11:43:54 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if people are being "frugal" or not - energy usage has a social impact. Whether or not energy is being "wasted" on a creature comfort or home lighting makes no difference - each of them consumes energy from the same source with the same consequence. What you are effectively proposing is the right to step in and arbitrate whose energy use you approve of and whose you don't. Meanwhile, if your concern is just "excessive" energy usage, it still doesn't justify a massive, resource-intensive intervention like this. One could still come up with an alternative pricing scheme for residential usage, like a system of "tiered" rates which progressively grow higher at fixed intervals in order to discourage more "marginal" usage of electricity. But frankly, I don't think that's the problem you're interested in solving."

You've certainly mastered the straw man. Congrats

4/17/2009 11:56:35 AM

WTG with the reading comprehension, there. As we've seen in the last several posts, now.

4/17/2009 11:57:29 AM

EPA says greenhouse emissions endanger human health

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday declared that greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide endanger human health and welfare, clearing the way for possible U.S. regulation. The EPA said it found that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations." Regulation is not automatically triggered by the finding, the agency said. There will be a 60-day comment period."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=epa-says-greenhouse-emiss

Does this mean we can get beyond arguing over the finer points of climate science (as if it was something you could learn via blog on the weekends)?

4/17/2009 2:44:51 PM

No, it means that the EPA overreached in an attempt to regulate as they see fit. The wording of that ruling leaves it very vulnerble to future challenges.



[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : I]

4/17/2009 3:03:33 PM

It is terrible to see all the people out there asphyxiating on all that CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure am glad the EPA is gonna do something about that. While they are at it, they should do something about all that DiHydrogen-Monoxide, too.

And, chaos, I'm glad you can dismiss an entire article based on one thing you disagree with. I understand very much the havoc that a rapid change in water parameters can have. But such a rapid change should be considered as occurring on a daily or weekly time-scale. NOT a decadal one. The point is that these creatures have survived, even THRIVED in environments where there was almost 20 times the CO2 in the air. In that time, why wasn't the ocean almost entirely acidic?

Quote :

"I mean, let's step back here, for a moment. Right now, what exactly is the counter-hypothesis? That we're not putting CO2 into the air at a tremendous and accelerating rate? That CO2 magically disappears, and does not dissolve into the ocean? Despite the evidence to the contrary?"

No, the point is that CO2 levels have been 20 times what they are today. Why should we expect something massively different to happen today than it did before? Ultimately, I'd say there may be something else at work here. While yes, different types of corals respond differently, we must assume that the initial corals that came into being during a time where the pH must have been infinitely higher, by your logic, must have been able to cope somehow... They are, after all, still here, in one form or another

4/17/2009 4:42:37 PM

Quote :

"And, chaos, I'm glad you can dismiss an entire article based on one thing you disagree with."

No, I said the article was suspect, as the author was clearly abusing the numbers in the instance I pointed out. And, amazingly enough, I actually provided a source for my argument. (Amazing!)

Quote :

"I understand very much the havoc that a rapid change in water parameters can have. But such a rapid change should be considered as occurring on a daily or weekly time-scale. NOT a decadal one."

Why? Again; we're looking at calcium carbonate dissolution. Given that evolutionary adaptations occur over hundreds of thousands of years, it is reasonable to ask what the effect over tens of years is.

Meanwhile, as I said before - the effect of changing pH on calcium carbonate-based organisms can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Unless you want to provide contrary evidence to what I have presented, the facts are quite clear on this one.

Quote :

"The point is that these creatures have survived, even THRIVED in environments where there was almost 20 times the CO2 in the air. In that time, why wasn't the ocean almost entirely acidic?"

Because, unlike you, somebody who did this study passed high school chemistry.

pH relates logarithmically. So, a 20x change in CO2 concentration, assuming the change scales 1:1 to ocean pH, would result about 1 point of pH.

Check my math:

log[20] = 1.3, i.e., 10^1.3 ~ 20.

Assuming an ocean pH of 8.2 as our baseline, this implies an ocean pH then of 6.9. Not "completely acidic."

Furthermore, let's just assume that this is true; that the decline of this particular coral is completely unrelated to ocean pH. So what? Again I point back to the reference - not every coral or other ocean fauna reacts the same. Not every one of those was around and thriving back in the paleolithic. And frankly, that fact alone would imply that if a pH can cause a decline in particular fauna (again, which can be demonstrated), this can have a disruptive effect upon the ecosystem.

It's not really that complicated of an argument.

4/17/2009 7:00:37 PM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, as I said before - the effect of changing pH on calcium carbonate-based organisms can be demonstrated in a laboratory environment. Unless you want to provide contrary evidence to what I have presented, the facts are quite clear on this one. "

Are they changing it over a decade?

Quote :

"Because, unlike you, somebody who did this study passed high school chemistry. pH relates logarithmically. So, a 20x change in CO2 concentration, assuming the change scales 1:1 to ocean pH, would result about 1 point of pH."

Thank you, I wanted you to fall in to that trap. Tell me, then, how is the pH going to decrease by as much as .4, as your source seems to suggest? .4, do the math, tell me what percentage decrease that is. And then, tell me how in the hell CO2 concentrations of 20 times that didn't seem to bring that about before. As I said, something more is happening than simple CO2-induced acidification. Thank you, friend, for truly proving my point.

In effect, you are agreeing with his original point: that CO2 is NOT influencing acidification as much as the alarmist claim it is. And yet, you won't read his point, because you "disagree with him" on that point. yet, you've already showed, effectively, that CO2 cannot be the culprit! You failed to read what he had to say, and if you had, you would have seen that he was talking about CO2-induced acidification. Congrats on being part of the problem when it comes to the scientific dishonesty regarding global fear-mongering

4/17/2009 7:24:18 PM

Quote :

"Are they changing it over a decade?"

Over a few decades - I believe this would be the whole point, after all.

Quote :

"Thank you, I wanted you to fall in to that trap. Tell me, then, how is the pH going to decrease by as much as .4, as your source seems to suggest? .4, do the math, tell me what percentage decrease that is."

Dude, you know how to use a calculator. I even showed you how to do the calculation if you don't trust my math. 10^0.4 ~ 2.5; in other words, about a 2.5x increase in CO2 concentration. Or, as the authors themselves said, about a 150% increase in acidity.

To review: 20x change, pH change of 1.3. 2.5x change, pH change of 0.4

You do realize to create a trap you have to say, have a point, right?

Quote :

"And then, tell me how in the hell CO2 concentrations of 20 times that didn't seem to bring that about before. As I said, something more is happening than simple CO2-induced acidification. Thank you, friend, for truly proving my point."

Uh, I showed you what a 20x change, making basic assumptions about dissolution, would do to pH - you'd see a drop of about 1.3 points. I am truly confused about the point you are trying to make, now. Are you claiming the relationship between CO2 partial pressure and pH is wrong? Are you claiming there is no effect between changes in ocean pH and fauna population? Help me out here.

Quote :

"In effect, you are agreeing with his original point: that CO2 is NOT influencing acidification as much as the alarmist claim it is. And yet, you won't read his point, because you "disagree with him" on that point. yet, you've already showed, effectively, that CO2 cannot be the culprit! You failed to read what he had to say, and if you had, you would have seen that he was talking about CO2-induced acidification. Congrats on being part of the problem when it comes to the scientific dishonesty regarding global fear-mongering"

I deeply suspect that you do not actually understand what is going on, here. And, rather than correct your misunderstanding, you choose to crow about the grand scientific conspiracy of which I am now an active participant.

No, for serious. This can be done in a lab. Basic chemistry. You can change the partial pressure of CO2 and measure the pH of saltwater. I fail to see where you're going here.

4/17/2009 7:49:11 PM

haha, I read that as .1, not 1, lol >.<

that notwithstanding, his number is still .1. You'll also note that he does not disagree that CO2 can lead to pH changes. However, he HAS noted that there are new discoveries showing *gasp* that the environment adapts to the CO2 change in a myriad number of ways to reduce the effect. I would, again, posit that it must be amazing that these creatures have fully evolved away from their original ability to handle the conditions in which they emerged. Seems a bit absurd, if you ask me. it would be akin to saying that humans could somehow evolve to point that oxygen is poisonous to them in an oxygen-rich environment.

I mean, honestly, how is it that such a calcifying organism is going to even be able to survive, let alone evolve, in an environment that kills it so quickly?

4/17/2009 8:31:45 PM

At which point, I go back to my original point:

Quote :

"Furthermore, let's just assume that this is true; that the decline of this particular coral is completely unrelated to ocean pH. So what? Again I point back to the reference - not every coral or other ocean fauna reacts the same. Not every one of those was around and thriving back in the paleolithic. And frankly, that fact alone would imply that if a pH can cause a decline in particular fauna (again, which can be demonstrated), this can have a disruptive effect upon the ecosystem."

Once more - testable hypothesis. The important thing is that simply because one coral is doing fine, or if it isn't, that we can rule out CO2 partial pressure as the cause, that all corals (and other animals) are okay. It's not that simple.

4/17/2009 8:39:08 PM