Noted scientists like James Hansen (head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) has been quoted saying a concentration of 450 ppm as a maximum goal for CO2 that may avoid the most significant damage to the Earth's ecosystems and economies.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa.../challenge.htm

As of 2007, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 380 ppm and climbing. At the rate we're adding CO2, we'd reach 450 ppm by about 2045.

CO2 has never been this high in recorded history:
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/wa...on_dioxide.jpg

I feel like a tag team with DC.
*SLAP* You're in!

DcDux, there is no downside to cutting emissions. Would you support switching power generation to nuclear in order to achieve that goal? Because that's the only way you'll get the numbers down substantially without significant economic impact.

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4...recool4dc9.gif

DC this graph as much relevance here as yours.

I mean you just showed a graph of carbon emissions in a void.

Ustwo, if you can't make an argument, then go study. Pastafarian evidence has no place here.

I'd be fine switching to nuclear + electric transportation (so long as we continue to develop more efficient and safe ways to make and recycle the batteries). The only issue is cost. Nuclear reactors cost $3-4b. How many do you suppose we'd need to replace all the fossil fuels burned today? The answer to that question illustrates my interest in reducing consumption overall.

Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.

The global temperature.

And recorded history, let me show it to you.
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9...cfig421fv5.jpg
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/7/4167


In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4...age270fkm9.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Keep chasing that rainbow guys.

I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change, but those are I know are boring and non-political. What to do if it gets warmer, colder, if areas get a drought etc.

Loquitor...nuclear power should be an option...IF it is properly regulated. And then there is the disposal question...ask the folks near Yucca Mountain.

But that will take years...and the NIMBY effect should be interesting. Do you want a Nuke plant in your backyard?

We should also have strict security regulations for nuclear (and chemical) facilities (as recommended by the 9/11 Commission) and not voluntary industry compliance as proposed by Bush.

In the meantime, the Bush EPA should comply with the USSC ruling last year (ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE et al. v. DUKE ENERGY CORP. et al.)...dump their so-called "Clear Skies Initiative", and enforce the previous regulations on power plant emissions in the Clean Air Act.

The Bush EPA should also comply with the USSC ruling (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al) to issue emission standards (including CO2) for motor vehicles

After respondent Duke Energy Corporation replaced or redesigned the workings of some of its coal-fired electric generating units, the United States filed this enforcement action, claiming, among other things, that Duke violated the PSD provisions by doing the work without permits. Petitioner environmental groups intervened as plaintiffs and filed a complaint charging similar violations. Duke moved for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that none of its projects was a "major modification" requiring a PSD permit because none increased hourly emissions rates.

I read the summary, which was enough leaglese to cause me brain damage as it is, but this was about permits?

I'm not going to read all of it, and all of the rulings, but I don't see anywhere where Duke Energy increased their hourly emissions and this seems to be about if they needed a permit or not to modify their generators in a manner which didn't change their emissions.

I for one am shocked this isn't being properly enforced.

Thanks for your thoughtful and in-depth analysis. :thumbsup:

Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" exempts power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology (best available retrofit technology or BART). NSR standards require new power plants and upgraded plants to comply with modern federal emissions limits. BART protects communities from persistent haze and other air quality problems by reducing the pollution emitted from antiquated power plants.

I have no interest in weighing in on the larger debate. However, I found this interesting:

Because it seemed so tangential and unrelated. I decided to find out what the motive was for this statement and discovered to my surprise that Ben Stein has Godwined the Evolution vs ID debate.

Ah, so you're going to ignore what we were talking about; CO2. Maybe we can talk about the election, too?
I guess you missed my US government study about CO2 numbers causing catastrophic climate change in very little time. Here, I'll make it harder to ignore:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig2.gif
I don't blame you. It'd be tough to argue that the earth is flat, too.

We can talk about The Onion's article:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Yes yes, what did that have to do with your link about permits?

SO you dont accept Intelligent Falling?

ps....read the Clean Air Act.

But will, why isn't the temperature rising now then? When will we reach these heights of CO2? What can the US do to stop the developing world?


Snark, nice, you just copy graphs you don't understand, get shot down and them and give a new one.

So in other words you too posted a link that really had no bearing.

Are you channeling another poster who likes to do that?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png
It is rising.
About 2050.
We should remove the log from our own eye before removing the splinter from theirs.
The graphs I posted are frighteningly simple, but if you have any questions I'd be glad to field them.

Read the Clean Air Act (is there an echo.....Read the Clean Air Act) and the process of how permits are supposed to be issued/denied for power plants (stationary sources of pollution) and you might understand the USSC decision.

I understand it, I don't understand why you care.

I don't think you want to understand.

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/2171/tempqj1.jpg

Obviously human produced CO2 must be the cause....:rolleyes:

Ustwo, let's recap what has transpired here....you set out to author a thread to "pooh pooh" "global warming", as you often attempt to debunk what mainstream science views as a human activity influenced, climate crisis. The centerpiece of your OP is an "article" authored by a British satirist, Christopher Booker: (in post #1)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

The, in your post (#10), you provide info about the "change of heart" (announced on Jan. 17, 2005) of meteorologist/hurrican expert Dr. Chris Landsea, which does not even seem to support your contention, because Landsea also said:
In your post (#28), you provide a link to an IBD editorial. IBD editorials are written by and exclusively for the consumption of "wingers"....remember, you chose to start this mocking exercise of a thread....is this all you got????

No....in your post (#32), you've displayed a cartoon graphic....

...and in post (#34) you post a link to an article which seems to be a gesture by you to mock academy award winning global warming documentarian, Al Gore !

Finally....all the way out in your post (#45) you've posted a linked excerpt to a scientific report concerning the effect of CO2 on climate change, but it's almost seven years old:
Rothman's aka Rothmandaggar's findings are put in context in this 18 months old article:

<h3>Meanwhile, since Rothman's late 2001 determinations on the historical effects of CO2 levels, leading authorities on the subject have conducted further research:</h3>
Ustwo, aside from demonstrating your political ideology so prominently in this thread, what do you think are your most convincing posts and citations to support your opinion? I think I've done a better job supporting my contention that NIST has not conducted an investigation into the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, given the stature of the collapse as unique in the annals of high rise steel structures, commensurate with what is potentially at stake by not providing a thorough and timely determinationL
....than you have in debunking the threat of human activity influenced global warming.

Please post your opinion of what piece of information you have already provided to support your opinion in this thread, is closest to being on a par with the any of the three items in the preceding quote box, supporting my contention that NIST has never been serious about investigating the collapse of WTC 7, because I don't see anything compelling posted to support your contrary claims about global warming, Your thread is akin to a poorly documented conspiracy theory, the kind of thread you abhor when the subject is challenges to the official story of what happened on 9/11....

You don't even seem to take your own attempt here as seriously as I have approached posting my observations about your "work" here.

Bottomline: I've presented in past threads, a hell of a lot better documented challenge to NIST's 9/11 WTC collapse investigation performance, and hence, a reasonable challenge to the official story of what happened on 9/11, than you have here in support of your challenge to scientific determinations about global warming and it's causes. Yet, you continue to label my well supported opinions as "extreme"...only worthy of discussion in the "paranoia" forum. Your presentation here does not even rise to the level I have maintained in challenging the official 9/11 record. Does your weaker challenge of conventional scientific consensus even belong in this forum? How is the OP here not a conspiracy theory?

I find it odd how the single major source of greenhouse emissions (international livestock industry according to the UN IPCC) is always conveniently left out of the politicized global warming discussion. Along with a huge defection of the "majority of scientists" from the human-caused global warming camp, the jury is definitely still out. Pro-human-caused global warming arguments are bogus political spin unless the impact from emissions/pollutants from livestock and supporting industries are included.

EDIT - - the reference to the UN IPCC should have been United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). The IPCC failed to include this data in their report.

I'm still waiting for Global Ape-ing.

http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/...pes/ending.jpg

otto, I thought the IPCC cited energy consumption (power plants, auto emissions, coal mining) as the single major source, followed by industrial processes, and then agricultural facilities (livestock), and last, land use and forestry.

Can you point me to an IPCC doc I havent seen?

Oh..and what huge defection of scientists?

Might you be referring to the Heartland Institute (with funding from Exxon) which claims that 500 scientists have defected from the human-contributor (not human cause) camp?

Funny how many of those scientists dont even know that the Heartland has included them on their list and have demanded that their names be removed.

Update: Heartland Insitute Backs off Fraudulent List - Refuses to Apologize

Perhaps even more alarming is how even the IPCC downplays the effects of dihydrogen monoxide which is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

While we hem and haw about a .28% contribution due to agriculture and fossil fuels, we ignore DHMO and its negative effects.

http://www.dhmo.org/

Clearly we need to ban DHMO as it is the greatest contributor to global warming. Thanks for bringing awareness to this little known problem.

I love the dueling graphs, guys. It's about time we got some color around here. It brightens things up.

I haven't even gotten to the chicken and the egg argument yet. Do correlations in CO2 and temperature have to do with CO2 causing higher temperatures, or higher temperatures causing the release of more C02.

Interesting, had not seen this one until now. It is absolutely a greater factor in the overall discussion on climate change and falls in line with the disregard of "inconvenient truths" by the IPCC and the man-made global warming proponents.

In my earlier post, I cited the IPCC had reported on the livestock industry. We had discussed this in threads many months ago and I'd forgotten that the IPCC actually failed to include the findings of the 2007 Rome report by the FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm An extensive 391 page UN FAO report which utilized the IPCC's quantification and analysis methodologies.

Here is a report from the UN FAO Newsroom (Livestock a major threat to Environment) highlighting many of the findings to be published in "Livestock's Long Shadow".

If we think the cows are farting too much, give 'em Beano. Quick and easy way to solve the problem of excess emissions!!

BEANO! :)

But then all that fart would end up in my hamburgers. I know that's how it works.

Have you been to McDonald's or Burger King lately? I hardly think that you'd notice the flatulence infused beef. And, if you did, it'd be an improvement.

The dollar menu is the dollar menu for a reason.

Seriously, though, the more I learn about human contributions to global climate change, the less certain I am of it, but only because I haven't taken the time to study the subject thoroughly; if I spent more time I would be more certain, though I'm not sure which way I'd go. I have seen a couple papers which showed that working only with the radiative heat transfer properties of CO2 it is difficult to support a claim that even a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would raise the temperature more than a fraction of a degree (Celsius). Methinks there would have to be more to it than CO2.

To be honest, the reality of it doesn't matter to me. Impending doom makes me apathetic, and if we are all fucked because of our carbon emissions I'd rather not do anything. The ideological split to me is a good indicator that a lot of the people who have a position on either side of the issue haven't given the science of it much thought.

On the other hand, there are a lot of reasons to do the things that we're supposed to do to avoid global catastrophe that don't rely on avoiding global catastrophe as a motivation. It's kind of a non issue for me.

Otto...I'm pretty certain the latest IPCC report included the data from the 2006 FAO study.

In the 2007 IPCC report, 57% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions are CO2 (fossil fuel use) .... CH4 and N2O (primarily agriculture) combined are 22%.

In terms of industry sector contributions: 26% energy supply (power plants, coal), 19% heavy industry, 17% forestry, 14% agriculture (your farting cows), 13% transport, 8% residential/commercial buildings.

If you really want to read the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (pdf)
(see Figure SPM.3 - page 5)

The difference between fossil fuel combustion (CO2) and cow farts (CH4) is far more pronounced in the US:

U.S. Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggc...%20Fig%203.gif

Round and round we go. :thumbsup:

And there it is.

How many people in this thread made up their minds about this issue long before they did any research?

The issue is not as simple as it's made out to be.

Regarding the IPCC, the last report I read (current as of late 2007) indicated that virtually all of their findings were derived using meta-analysis. Take from that what you will.

EDIT for UsTwo:

http://www.dhmo.org/images/dhmobanner.gif

My favorite part that has gone uncommented upon is this:

Bush's approval rating is still in the high 20s, so I wouldn't worry too much about people's resentment. If your concern were valid, his approval rating would be zero.

As far as this topic:
The last couple of posters have it right - people believe what they believe for the most part. And nothing changes that. Again, Host posts great, calm questions and is flatly ignored. When the OPs comments are strung together, as Host did, it becomes pretty clear which "side" has more credibility...

Looking at the temperature over the last few years and saying look the earth is warming or the earth is cooling is like looking at the change in stock market with 1 minute worth of data and saying "see the stock market is increasing (or decreasing) this year" A single year is way to little data to determine what the overall trend is over 100, 1000, 10000, and especially 100,000 years. There is so much noise in these types of measurements that you can't with certainty say anything.

That is why for me the argument of global warming comes down to 1) is man kind changing the environment in a way that could have consequences. If the answer to that question is yes then the second question is 2) scientifically speaking how will those changes likely effect the earth.

The question should be "what are the likely effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere?" not "is the earth warming, cooling, or neither?"

Boatin, you've given me a reason to bother to repost the last sentence in my last post. It clearly needs to be asked again, because the Ustwo quote that you displayed confirms Ustwo fears a conspiracy to "dupe" the public is what is at work in this young century!

Looks like your education included a few courses on how to attack the messenger.

If the source of information is clearly biased, then the un-cited information they present is suspect. It's not an ad hom fallacy if they don't cite information because they become the source.

So will what effects do you think the pacific decadal oscillation has on global climate?