Obama Begins Regulation of Carbon Dioxide

THE US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday issued its much anticipated ‘Endangerment Finding’ which makes six gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride — officially recognised as a danger to the public. 

Many see this as the first formal action by the Obama administration toward the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions as part of his administrations commitment to fighting global warming.

The announcement is likely to now bring pressure on the US Congress to back emissions trading legislation which would require polluters to get permits for emissions, rather than letting the EPA set the rules.

“There is no longer a question of if or even when the U.S. will act on global warming: We are doing so now,” said a spokesperson for the Sierra Club.  

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said: “The release of EPA’s proposed finding that global warming is a threat to public health and welfare is long overdue — we have lost eight years in this fight. The Clean Air Act provides EPA with an effective toolbox for cutting greenhouse gas emissions right now.”

“However, the best and most flexible way to deal with this serious problem is to enact a market based cap and trade system which will help us make the transition to clean energy and will bring us innovation and strong economic growth.”

According to physicist Fred Singer: “The train was set in motion by the Supreme Court ruling that EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue such a finding — if it determines that greenhouse gases gases affect human health and welfare.   A train wreck would seem to be just around the corner.

“But not so fast: Even after the Endangerment Finding (EF) has been issued, there will be a 60-day period for comments.  Then EPA will be beset with lawsuits – principally, that it has not demonstrated the claimed adverse effects. Then EPA will have to draft regulations to limit emissions of CO2.  The CAA specifies a lower limit of 250 tons per year; that would affect 1.2 million establishments, including apartment buildings, hospitals, and maybe even Al Gore’s mansion. 

“If the EPA tries to raise the limit to a more manageable value, they would violate the law and usurp the authority of Congress.

“EPA would also have to regulate the emission of methane from farms, feedlots, sewage treatment plants, etc.  Finally, EPA would have to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), again according to law, and demonstrate how these could be achieved.”

According to blogger, Anthony Watts: “In a stunning act of political kowtowing, the EPA has caved to special interest groups and politics and declared CO2 a ‘dangerous pollutant’, even though it is part of the natural cycle of life.  Now the gloves come off and the real fight begins during the 60 day public comment period. If you’ve never stood up to ‘consensus’ before, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.

***************************

Notes and Links

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awGVNSF64rdU&refer=home

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/co2-epa-politics-and-all-that/

http://climatedepot.com/a/303/Boxer-Calls-Endangerment-Finding-Long-Overdue

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924

US Government Media Release: EPA Finds Greenhouse Gases Pose Threat to Public Health, Welfare / Proposed Finding Comes in Response to 2007 Supreme Court Ruling

(Washington, D.C. – April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare.

The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat.

“This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation,” said Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This pollution problem has a solution – one that will create millions of green jobs and end our country’s dependence on foreign oil.”

As the proposed endangerment finding states, “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

The scientific analysis also confirms that climate change impacts human health in several ways. Findings from a recent EPA study titled “Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone,” for example, suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to:
• increased drought;
• more heavy downpours and flooding;
• more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires;
• greater sea level rise;
• more intense storms; and
• harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems.

In proposing the finding, Administrator Jackson also took into account the disproportionate impact climate change has on the health of certain segments of the population, such as the poor, the very young, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.

In addition to threatening human health, the analysis finds that climate change also has serious national security implications. Consistent with this proposed finding, in 2007, 11 retired U.S. generals and admirals signed a report from the Center for a New American Security stating that climate change “presents significant national security challenges for the United States.” Escalating violence in destabilized regions can be incited and fomented by an increasing scarcity of resources – including water. This lack of resources, driven by climate change patterns, then drives massive migration to more stabilized regions of the world.

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.

More information: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

49 Responses to Obama Begins Regulation of Carbon Dioxide

  1. Louis Hissink April 18, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world.

    Now I wonder if that conclusion was peer reviewed.

  2. InfernoJones April 18, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    Lets look at some inconvenient facts for the warmists:

    1) co2 is measured on top of one of the world’s most active volcanoes – Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

    2) Volcanoes produce a LOT of co2 (another fact ignored by the warmists)

    3) 1 + 2 = 3! In this case it’s obvious that the co2 measurements are contaminated by the volcano.

    4) There is no co2 rise in recent years, in fact co2 levels have fallen since at least 1996:
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mlo_co2_rateofchange_1996-20091.png
    (perhaps a decrease in volcanic activity could be due to a very low solar minimum)

    5) co2 measurements are unreliable anyway. There is too much error to accurately measure a trace gas at just 0.038% of the atmosphere.

  3. Dennis Webb April 18, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    InfernoJones,

    What a blogsite you have, Jen would like it:

    http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

    Science for real people!

    Recommended.

  4. Dennis Webb April 18, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    Comments at WUWT:

    Graeme Rodaughan (03:18:20) :

    I would love to be present the day that an EPA zealot walks into a Hells Angels Bar waving his “Authority” around and demands that they serve their beer flat.

    [perhaps particularly relevant given the bikie issue in Oz]

    Rhys Jaggar (03:20:27) :

    You guys still haven’t got it yet?

    This is about giving the Wall Street Boys a new casino.

    Yup, that’s right. Sub prime bailed out, they need a new scam to continue their gambling. Now they’ve disarmed the London boys from their ‘market lead’……

    Cap N Trade.

    And in a few years, they’ll have bankrupted the banks again with phoney climate products and you suckers will be asked to bail them out. Again.

  5. Les Francis April 18, 2009 at 11:29 pm #

    The real problem with this is that legislation has been taken out of the hands of elected officials and put power into the hands of a few appointed officials. (whatever the political persuasion).

    Whatever happened to “By the people for the people”

    Do you know why the right to bear arms and raises militias is written into the U.S. Constitution?
    It’s original intention was a warning to the legislators is that the ultimate power lay in the hands of the people.

  6. Luke April 18, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Look at ’em froth.

    Reckon denialists and rednecks need to be carbon taxed double !

    Oh no the Inferno strikes again – the nutter vulcan-o-phile – thinks if he keeps repeating the volcano crap – that will come true. Get off the blog you clown !

    For those needing to get beyond the inevitable dummy spitting and lying denialist scum propaganda –
    http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf

    (Louis – don’t bother reading – it’s above your level.)

    Hey – BUT !! – how can this EPA gig be happening – all we’ve heard for months is that the sceptics have won? How can this be? Has Bob called Obama and told him the facts?

  7. J.Hansford April 19, 2009 at 12:52 am #

    You like paying the government most of what you earn Luke…? Because that is what is going to happen.

    Nothing to do with climate and everything to do with Politics, Luke.

  8. InfernoJones April 19, 2009 at 1:34 am #

    CO2 regulation is nothing more than a tax on common sense!

    We are currently in a period of history described as the “CO2 Starvation Period”

    CO2 levels are not rising fast enough to be of any concern whatsoever. The evidence suggests that CO2 levels may have been over 2,000ppm just 800 years ago:
    http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html

  9. bill-tb April 19, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    “Then EPA will be beset with lawsuits – principally, that it has not demonstrated the claimed adverse effects.”

    Yes, that is going to happen.

    It is interesting to note that the EPA’s first official paper has backed off the untrue statement that CO2 is directly harmful, and they have focused on the secondary effect. BUT — This may also mean that the EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate something that has no direct effect. Else they could simply declare everything has a secondary effect, regulate that secondary effect, so no one could do anything less it might be be harmful to something.

    In all other cases the EPA has relied on real primary effects to regulate. Only the nonsense of DDT fell outside those restraints, and that was nothing more than a flawed political ruling.

    It is also interesting to see how they brush off water vapor, when water vapor accounts for 95% of all greenhouse effect. Surely man puts lots of water vapor in the air, haven’t you been to a sweaty indoor conference lately?

    Since the science of CO2 is so flawed and unprovable, note also they added some throwaway chaff to the CO2 equation. It is time we demand proof, instead of gibberish from unprovable computer models. Computer models are proof of nothing.

    But as a simple solution, might I suggest we super glue all the true believers lips and noses together — just think of what that would cure.

  10. Neville April 19, 2009 at 8:40 am #

    It amazes me that the reasoning behind this so called (natural) pollution con adds up to a grand total of one hundreth of one percent of the atmosphere. ( .038% minus .028% = .01%)
    This is supposed by Wong and Garrett to bring about the destruction of the Murray river, Kakadu and the Great barrier reef.
    Only 9 years have passed since scientists noticed the effects of the warm phase Indian ocean Dipole and its rainfall effects on Southern Australia. Even in la nina years rainfall over southern Aust seems to be depleted without the Indian Ocean Dipole changing to its cool phase, something it hasn’t done for many years, certainly during the recent drought.

  11. Louis Hissink April 19, 2009 at 10:16 am #

    CO2 regulation is to generate income to pay for the unfunded superannuation payouts that social democratic governments have world wide for their employees, including politicians.

    Western Australia has about $A2 billion in unfunded superannution obligations. Heaven’s knows what the EU or the UN unfunded obligations are.

    So Luke, as a the chief scientific officer for the QLD Climate Office has a vested interest in enabling this extra form of taxation.

    If AGW get’s killed, they then have to find another way of raising taxes to pay for their retirement.

  12. kuhnkat April 19, 2009 at 10:34 am #

    Luke,

    have you installed your HAND operated water pump yet?? You are going to need it if your favored policies are implemented. Of course, the water volume will be restricted and taxed, so be ready for that also!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  13. Jennifer April 19, 2009 at 10:56 am #

    just filing some thoughts from others here:

    Making CO2 a pollutant is just ridiculous. Next thing it will be water because water causes floods!

    Humans are by their living, breathing nature now officially pollutants of this world:
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/humans_declared_toxic#52938

  14. IanP April 19, 2009 at 11:02 am #

    How will the EPA deal with the lives of many office workers, train, bus, car and airplane commuters, students and school children who are forced to spend many hours inside with closed windows and doors and with ‘heavy breathers’ emitting CO2?

    Poor ventilation and air recycling of air (often due to unpleasant outside weather conditions) commonly results is elevated CO2 within buildings and vehicles and values are frequently well above 600ppm CO2 (often over 1,000ppm CO2). Any figures on the death toll?

    I have yet to see a report of a sick secretary or student who can no longer breath the high CO2 atmosphere of his/her work or study conditions.

  15. Hasbeen April 19, 2009 at 11:31 am #

    Could this be Obama’s escape plan?

    Throw this stupidity to the courts, via the EPA.

    When it gets chucked out of court, he can drop his vote buying policy, without loosing too much ratbag support.

    If not, the US have set the path to their demise as a power, super or otherwise, in stone, with the election of this bloke.

  16. Neville April 19, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    It really is a dangerous pollutant when it is used to supply the fizz in so many carbonated drinks all over the world and of course the levels in greenhouses sometimes reaches 5,000 to 10,000ppm, GEE I wonder why greenhouse workers are not falling over like flies.

  17. hunter April 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    We must limit the employers who cause CO2 pollution.
    The largest employers in the world are governments.
    If we off 80% of all government workers, the problem will be solved.

  18. Louis Hissink April 19, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    Hunter,

    I don’t think Luke or SJT would support such a policy, let alone the rest of the climate croakers posting here, who rely on government handouts for their daily bread paid by our involuntary donations to the tax department.

  19. Marcus April 19, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    hunter,
    “If we off 80% of all government workers, the problem will be solved.”

    I wouldn’t even mind paying them, just make them to stay away from the office and DO NOTHING.
    That alone would save us bucketfuls of money.

  20. Eyrie April 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    So how come dihydrogen monoxide isn’t on the list? It is an effective greenhouse gas.

  21. Neville April 19, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    Eyrie I see you’ve watched Penn and Teller, I thought that one about the banning water petition showed that leftwing lunatics would sign just about anything.

  22. Luke April 19, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    But Louis – smarties and rednecks surely don’t pay any tax.

    You guys have always got some prickle farm somewhere running at a loss. That’s when you don’t have you hand out for land care grants, NHT, drought support, dollar for dollar research funding. What a lurk you lot are on.

    Don’t pay any tax and all these perks.

    We know how the redneck goons like it – capitalise gains and socialise losses. Let the taxpayer pick up the environmental tab. But surely that’s not you – coz you have to actually pay tax to contribute.

  23. Luke April 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    It’s obvious that CO2 is a dangerous radiative forcing pollutant. The case is set out clearly here http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf

    We’ve heard no rebuttal on here about it !

    Obviously the sceptics have done a ratshit job at promoting their flimflam dodgy brothers “case” which has been summarily dismissed by the world’s science organisations.

  24. Louis Hissink April 19, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    Luke,

    Government doesn’t have money itself, only that which is takes from the people, so us taking back is all fair. It’s having to pay the likes of your your wages and pensions that most of us object to.

    And no, most sceptics were blinded by the peudioscience of the CO2 scam – few realised the politics behind it.

    The world’s science organisations are basically rent seekers who provide the science for their political masters.

  25. Larry April 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Hasbeen April 19th, 2009 at 11:31 am wrote:

    “Could this be Obama’s escape plan?

    Throw this stupidity to the courts, via the EPA.

    When it gets chucked out of court, he can drop his vote buying policy, without loosing too much ratbag support.”

    That scenario hadn’t occurred to me. Thanks. I hope that you’re right. Otherwise I’d be tempted to remind Obama about the magic Bill Clinton formula: “It’s the economy, Stupid!”

  26. James Mayeau April 19, 2009 at 9:35 pm #

    Same day ye have Barry splicing the mainbrace in the lair of the Brethren Court, he be announce’n the EPA going on the account.

    Be handing over ye swag smartly bucko afor ye fall under Cap’n Trade’s cutlass.

  27. James Mayeau April 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    It be a black mark on the sutler til Barry gets the Scuppers.

  28. James Mayeau April 19, 2009 at 9:49 pm #

    Belay that Luke , ye be rebutted, ye rum addled bilge sucker.

  29. Louis Hissink April 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    James Mayeau

    I think the tern is a Pyhrric Victory.

  30. Malcolm Hill April 19, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    “Executive Summary
    This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act. This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator. The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change ”

    Of course its going to be just a respray of the mantra if they only use the IPPC crap etc.

    Not worth a crumpet.

  31. sunsettommy April 20, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    I am frustrated at the absurd infatuation of a trace gas with NO demonstrated harm verified by any research.

    A trace gas that is still a trace gas with tiny frequency bands and no heat “trapping” capability shown.The earths atmosphere does not have a rate of warming control mechanism in place.It is a rate of COOLING control set up that is in operation.Through storms,wind distribution and changeable ocean currents.All involved in REMOVING heat from the surface to outerspace.

    I guess that means we have to shut down all those high CO2 greenhouses that produce vegetables and the “hothouse” tomatoes.Shut down the elevated CO2 greenhouses that grow most of our anuual and perennial flowers as well as houseplants.

    I am sure the government pricks will exempt themselves from such regulations and continue to enjoy those greenhouse grown tomatoes.

  32. stan longbottom April 20, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    Work in a coal mine in the hunter valley. Earn good cash for working under ground in a dalk and dangerous place. The boys are getting a bit restless about the threat too their job if a carbon tax comes in. Our union rep has recommended a few websites to look at. Maybe the world won’t end in the next century. But would love to have a beer with the dickhead called luke.

  33. WJP April 20, 2009 at 12:33 am #

    Louis, you’re being way to kind to Luke. He doesn’t understand that the days of easy dollars (if indeed they ever existed), have gone gone gone. Currently governments are borrowing and issuing currency like there’s no tomorrow.
    BO is the world champion, needing to borrow US$3.25 trillion in what used to be a US$14 trillion economy for the 09 year, according to Goldman Sachs. Next year the numbers being in the order of US$3.55 trillion. This will be on top of the existing US$10.5 trillion.

    http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?hl=en&q=us+government+debt&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=9CnrSfKRENSJkQXmk-GpCA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

    Where it gets really stinking is unfunded future liabilities of social security, medicare/medicaid of US$57 trillion +.

    http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt_b.htm

    Now Kevin in heaven is doing his level best to be a BO too. So Luke, smile cos you’re a winner too. But in the inflated future hell, when you cash in your super, and have enough for a box of matches, remember who tipped you off. Chuckle chuckle….

  34. Eli Rabett April 20, 2009 at 3:41 am #

    Inferno Jones burns up

    “Lets look at some inconvenient facts for the warmists:

    1) co2 is measured on top of one of the world’s most active volcanoes – Mauna Loa in Hawaii.

    2) Volcanoes produce a LOT of co2 (another fact ignored by the warmists)

    3) 1 + 2 = 3! In this case it’s obvious that the co2 measurements are contaminated by the volcano.

    4) There is no co2 rise in recent years, in fact co2 levels have fallen since at least 1996:”

    Well, you would think someone would try to measure that, and indeed someone has, first Pales and Keeling

    “The observatory is remote from sources and sinks of carbon dioxide except for sources at the station itself. Careful placing of intakes. for sampling the air prevents serious contamination. The nearest continental land mass is too far away (3700 km) to have any regional influence.
    The nearest vegetation of consequence is 30 km from the observatory and below the prevailing trade wind inversion. The influence of plant activity is often perceptible during the latter half of the day during periods of up slope winds, but it is otherwise not detectable. Outgassing from volcanic vents upslope from the observatory affects the air on some nights, but its influence on the CO2 concentration of the air is readily discerned and can be eliminated from consideration. The observatory is thus an excellent if not an ideal,s ite for measuring CO2 in the upper air of the northern tropics.”

    and then, of course there is Steven Ryan’s Quiescent Outgassing of Mauna Loa Volcano 1958-1994 Geophysical Mono graphs, 1995, work that shows the peak increases on a minute basis were ~10 ppm from eruptions, but on a monthly basis, except for immediately after the 1984 eruption, these were well below 1 ppm

    And then, of course, the well known fact that human emissions of CO2 exceed volcanic emissions by a factor of 100

    “Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. ”

    and then, of course, the fact that we have a bunch of other measurement series for CO2 that track the Mauna Loa ones

    1+ 2 = you are wrong.

  35. eric adler April 20, 2009 at 5:26 am #

    Eli,
    Inferno Jones uses exactly the same post over and over on any thread that is close to relevant.
    It doesn[t matter how many times he receives a reply which demolishes his statements, he is going to keep doing it.
    Facts and logic are irrelevant.
    Check out his blog.

  36. CoRev April 20, 2009 at 5:38 am #

    Luke said: “But Louis – smarties and rednecks surely don’t pay any tax. ” Dunno what happens in OZ-land, but here in the “Good Ole” the lowest quintile pays -2.8% income tax, the next lowest pays -.8, the third quintile pays ~+5%. Care to guess who gets soaked with taxes??? It sure ain’t the rednecks, and the “smarties” appear to be in BO’s party. We are about to set a record for Prez appointees who have admitted to not paying their complete income taxes.

    As to the EPA ruling, it will take years for the Regs to get implemented, and even then they will take a Supreme Court ruling to get implemented. By that time the folly of over emphasizing the impact of a minor trace gas should be clear.

  37. Jimmock April 20, 2009 at 11:26 am #

    Boxer’s comment that emissions regulation will lead to ‘economic growth’ must be the ultimate non-sequitur. On the contrary, the decline of the catastrophic AGW myth over the next few years will give us a boost comparable to the post-Reagun ‘peace dividend’.

  38. Green Davey April 20, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    I have just written to Mr Obama, and our own Mr Rudd, suggesting that OXYGEN is the real culprit, and should be banned. After all, there is scientific evidence that oxygen is an essential component of carbon dioxide. No oxygen, no carbon dioxide, no global warming. Why can’t you deniers understand the basic science? No wonder Luke gets annoyed, and has to spend his valuable time explaining things.

  39. Eli Rabett April 20, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    Eric, sometimes the answers are potted too. There are lurkers.

  40. Louis Hissink April 20, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    Stan Longbottom,

    Make sure you are wearing your safety boots if, and when, you have a beer with Luke. He’ll be besides himself after he has been codswalloped at the local rubbidy.

  41. cohenite April 20, 2009 at 4:14 pm #

    The EPA document is reviewed by Gavin Schmidt; as they say in legal circles: the probative value of the evidence has just nose-dived.

    Eli is back and breathing fire just like a volcano; speaking of which the effect of volcanoes on temperature [as the proxy of naughty CO2] is a tad inconsistent with CO2 guilt;

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/volcanos-and-trends.jpg

  42. eric adler April 20, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    Comment from: cohenite April 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    .. speaking of which the effect of volcanoes on temperature [as the proxy of naughty CO2] is a tad inconsistent with CO2 guilt;

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/volcanos-and-trends.jpg

    You are making another stupid straw man argument supported by a stupid graph.

    No one claims that CO2 emitted by volcanoes is a factor in the increase in CO2 which we are seeing currently. As Eli and pointed out in our reply to Jones,, CO2 emitted by volcanoes is currently about 1% of the human industrial emissions, and is a negligible factor in the increase of CO2. Either you don’t understand what you read, or you are being disingenuous.

    The graphs you show are at the shortest, a 92month moving average, which are too long term to show the full cooling effect of aerosals emitted by volcanoes, during their eruption, which is know to last about 2 years.

  43. kuhnkat April 21, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Eric Adler,

    since there is NO reasonable measurement of volcanic or other geologic output of CO2, throwing out a figure like 1% of ??? is quite disengenuous. It is idiotic statements like this that started me on the road to denial. If you doubt my statement, show me the detailed mapping of the ocean bottoms and the geologic outp from them. Y’all can’t even accept the geology of the Antarctica and Greenland that is ABOVE water!!

    Y’all are becoming the village idiots. The most recent polls here in the US have “believers” down to about 30%!!

    Eli,

    shame on you!!!

  44. eric adler April 22, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    Comment from: kuhnkat April 21st, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Eric Adler,

    since there is NO reasonable measurement of volcanic or other geologic output of CO2, throwing out a figure like 1% of ??? is quite disengenuous. It is idiotic statements like this that started me on the road to denial. If you doubt my statement, show me the detailed mapping of the ocean bottoms and the geologic outp from them. Y’all can’t even accept the geology of the Antarctica and Greenland that is ABOVE water!!

    Y’all are becoming the village idiots. The most recent polls here in the US have “believers” down to about 30%!!

    The reflex of AGW deniers is denial. You provided no evidence of any estimates that are substantially larger than the estimates that are normally quoted from the USGS of an annual average of 130Mtons annually. This could be an overestimate according to some geoscientists who have written on this subject.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/631t022372116213/

    Abstract Continuing interest in the effects of carbon dioxide on climate has been promoted by the exponentially increasing anthropogenic production of CO2. Volcanoes are also a major source of carbon dioxide, but their average input to the atmosphere is generally considered minor relative to anthropogenic input. This study examines eruption chronologies to determine a new estimate of the volcanic CO2 input and to test if temporal fluctuations may be resolved. Employing representative average values of 2.7 g cm−3 as density of erupted material, 0.2 wt percent CO2 in the original melt, 60 percent degassing during eruption, and an average volume of 0.1 km3 for each of the eruptions in the recently published eruption chronology of Hirschboeck (1980), a volcanic input of about 1.5 · 1011 moles CO2 yr−1 was determined for the period 1800–1969. The period 1800–1899 had a somewhat lower input than 1900–1969, which could well be related more to completeness of observational data than to a real increase in volcanic CO2. This input is well below man’s current CO2 production of 4–5 · 1014 moles CO2 yr−1.
    The average values above together with specific volumetric estimates were employed to calculate CO2 input from individual historic eruptions, massive flood basalts, and ash-flow eruptions. Total CO2 release from the largest of flood basalt and ash-flow sequences was 1015-1016 moles of CO2. The impact of these sources on global atmospheric CO2 and climate, however, will be limited by the duration and spacing of the major individual eruptive periods in the sequences.

    So the 1% figure I used was an overestimate. The above article has .03%.

    http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html

    Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. While this is a conservative estimate, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

    Are you claiming that the scientists studying this stuff are idiots? How would you know?
    Do you have any other references beside Inferno Jones?

  45. Gordon Robertson April 23, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    stan longbottom “Work in a coal mine in the hunter valley….would love to have a beer with the dickhead called luke”.

    stan…there were several coal miners among my relatives. I’m sure they’d have loved to have Luke visit them down the pit.

  46. Gordon Robertson April 23, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    Luke…It’s obvious that CO2 is a dangerous radiative forcing pollutant. The case is set out clearly here http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf

    Luke…I was looking over the contributors to your linked article:

    “Federal expert reviewers

    Virginia Burkett, USGS; Phil DeCola; NASA (on detail to OSTP); William Emanuel, NASA; Anne Grambsch, EPA; Jerry Hatfield, USDA; Anthony Janetos; DOE Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service; Thomas Karl, NOAA; Michael McGeehin, CDC; Gavin Schmidt, NASA; Susan Solomon, NOAA; Thomas Wilbanks, DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory”

    Gavin Schmidt??…he’s a mathematician. What could he possibly know about CO2? Virginia Burkett is a Doctor of Forestry. A what?? How about Susan Solomon, NOAA. She’s the one who disallowed a protest by Steve McIntyre when a reviewer submitted a paper late, a direct contravention of IPCC rules. She also asked the Michael Mann related IPCC group to look into bristle-cone data, which had been ruled inadmissable by NIS. They ignored her and she did nothing about it. What are bristle-cones?? They are used for proxy data studies, and Mann used them to prove his hockey stick inferences. Without the data, his studies fall apart, but Solomon couldn’t give a hoot.

    What you have linked to Lukey is an IPCC propaganda paper.

  47. Eli Rabett April 24, 2009 at 2:45 am #

    Youse don’t get it. The entire purpose of the EPA ruling was to force a vote in Congress on greenhouse gas legislation. From the beginning of the year the talking heads were braying that Obama would never get a vote on this short of folding it into a budget reconciliation bill which is not subject to filibuster. When the US Senate voted not to do that the chorus got lowder. That just went away. Moreover, the fallback in case Congress does not pass legislation is no longer nothing, but EPA regulation which should concentrate everyone’s mind.

    Since the Supreme Court has already ruled that CO2 is subject to regulation by the Clean Air Act and must be regulated any law suits are haggling on the edges.

  48. Raffi April 30, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    I am just curious how they come to that conclusion. I have gone through their TSD endangerment pdf and they have listed all the changes and the % of CO2 emitters and armwaved through a lot of “facts” such as Arctic sea ice extent changes, ocean pH changes, ecosystem changes and of course possible impacts on ecosystems, settlements etc under projection (i.e. computer model outputs) scenarios. With their final conclusion, that these gases are dangerous to humans, I have a few simple questions:

    1) How come that our net corn and grain production per sq m has increased over the last 50 years if CO2 was dangerous to life? Is that only due to better farming approaches including better usage of water, fertilisers, etc?

    2) How come that most countries around the globe have seen a doubling or tripling of people’s life-expectancy since pre-industrial time? Is it only due to medical improvements or also due to warmer climates and of course the use of fossil fuels?

    It seems to me that too many people are too wealthy and have no real problems any more so they try to raise their status above the normal plebs. Why not send the entire committee and our politicians for 6 months or longer to Kalimantan, New Guinea, Congo or somewhere else and have them survive there in local communities. Surely that would open their eyes that there are more important problems we have on our planet than trying to make a problem out of CO2.

  49. Translation June 4, 2009 at 2:24 am #

    I have been wondering if we humans aren’t doing the earth a favor by bringing carbon back above the earth’s surface. Think about it: All of that carbon was above the surface to begin with and when those ancient plants/animals died, the ecosystems lost all of that carbon. Furthermore, the earth has been in a 3 million year cooling cycle, and we could be helping to stabilize the temperature by adding our global warming. Just a thought.

Website by 46digital