Greenhouse Gases to be Listed as Pollutants by EPA

This is a terribly important point (and I can go WAY off topic discussing it), but hardly an impetus to avoid cleaner energy.

 

This sounds like a press release from some kind of doomsday cult. I hope you don't believe that this is true. If by some chance you do I can show you quite quickly that it isn't.

 

There could well be a very significant dispute about the North West Passage as well. Canada claims it as internal waters but other countries want to classify it as international waters, for the purposes of shipping at least. Up to now it's been a moot point because it's been iced over most of the time. We've had the coldest winter in decades this year, however, so that issue may have been pushed back a bit. (It snowed today, if you can believe it.)

 

I would argue, however softly, that neither of you should look at short-term weather data for much of anything. The longest possible data sets of global temp, atmospheric CO2, and sea levels are the relevant ones. I know you both know this, but it bears repeating, as it's human nature to say (as I did in SF earlier this week, "90 degrees in April, in THIS city?") but that's not so useful.

The big data sets are what worry people.

 

Thanks, cuz I was gonna post about our 36 degree April night in H-Town.

 

That’s very strange. Winnipeg, which is just north of you, had its coldest winter in 13 years.
http://robsobsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/coldest-winter-in-winnipeg-in-13-years.html

And Regina, which is just a little further away, had its coldest winter in 30 years.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2009/03/12/cold-records.html

 

As usual, my words have immense impact on the interwebs.

 

This would certainly true w.r.t. to a discussion on global warming, but the point being raised here was that this winter, which was an unusually cold one, will likely push back a possible opening up of the North West Passage.

 

interwebs impact....

 

Maybe I got up on the stupid side of the bed this morning, but this one’s escaping me.

 

I'm poking at B-Bob.

 

And not a friendly, facebook-style poking. Just cruel, spiky poking, Mr. two cubes of soylent green.

 

Ooookay. I'm out of the loop on this one.

 

if there's 2 words that adequately describe me, they are "cruel" and "spiky".

 

I could come around to this view. We should tie each day's carbon quota to yesterday's weather, on a county by county basis!

 

Good post.

The bottom line is that we have no earthly idea if 'global warming' is even occuring. It's far too complex to understand. Many people believe that the earth has cooled over the past 7 years. When less than 5% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from fossil-fuel fired power plants, why exactly have we made them the villain? Why exactly are we bound and determined to cripple the American manufacturing industry (as if they need even MORE disadvantages) and the American consumer with higher energy costs and higher taxes? Are we even aware that this will simply shift manufacturing and industrial activity to countries with WEAKER environmental controls, leading to MORE pollution? Probably not. Or if the brilliant minds leading our feral government are aware, then it only further exposes the 'global warming' issue as being one of higher tax revenues to fund the further increase in government's size.

Let the scientists continue to wring their hands over trivial matters, such as the sea level allegedly rising a millimter over 100 years. Just don't let them intrude into matters relating to our nation's economic well being.

 

No no no. I never said that we don't know if Global Warming is occuring or not. It is occurring. The science behind that is sound. You can question it, but you can also question evolution.

I am saying that can we reverse it? That's the question. My argument is that trying isn't enough.

 

IPCC's and the one Al Gore used to say that sea levels would increase by 7m.

Most predicitions have the sea level rising about 1/2 a meter in the next century - mainly due to the thermal expansion of water....not glacial melting.

So who here thinks we can deal with a foot and a half rise in sea level over the course of 100 years?????

I mean, do we need to take such radical steps for that?