« DaimlerChrysler Developing Series Hybrid Citaro Bus | Main | Tonen Li-Ion Battery Separator Features Improved Permeability and Thermal Properties »
California, Connecticut Governors Slam Federal Government on Climate Change
21 May 2007
In a piece in today’s Washington Post, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell said that the action of the federal government “borders on malfeasance” for trying to block the efforts of states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles.
California and the 11 other states that have adopted the California regulations are poised to enact vehicle emissions standards that would cut a total of 392 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to the projected business-as-usual scenario.
Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way.
Another discouraging sign came just last week, when President Bush issued an executive order to give federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and determine what can be done about them.
To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.
—Governors Schwarzenegger and Rell
Noting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is “finally” holding the first of two hearings on the waiver request (earlier post), the governors welcomed the opportunity to call attention to the harmful effects of global warming, but said that they “are far from convinced” that the agency will grant the waiver.
Should that occur, the governors said, legal action will follow to “settle this issue once and for all.”
California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously.
It’s high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way.
May 21, 2007 in Climate Change, Emissions, Policy | Permalink | Comments (47) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/18659128
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California, Connecticut Governors Slam Federal Government on Climate Change:
Comments
So this means the EPA is now able to wait till the end of 2008 before making a decision on the waiver?
Posted by: marcus | May 21, 2007 12:49:05 PM
CO2 is not a "pollutant" in the sense that EPA defines pollutant. It is a natural occurring and necessary trace gas.
Period.
H2O is a Green House Gas that is 17 time more effective as a GHG on equal mole for mole basis. Its atmospheric presence dwarfs the presence of CO2 as well; making itthousands of time more effective as a GHG, since its presence in the atmosphere as vapor and clouds can approach 100,000 ppm, and not a mere insignificant 380 ppm traces as CO2 is.
So how do we regulate water (H2O) as the similar awful "pollutant" that GHG "pollutant" actually is?
The Law of Unintended Consequences is at work here as well. There are CO2 (and H2O) sources that you don't think of that will need regulating.
Humans are pretty ineffective vehicle motors generating lots of CO2 and water vapor GHGs, even when peddling a bicycle.
How can we not rule all bicycles off the roads as well? And not sue the bike makers out of existence? (How can they reduce CO2/H2O) from You? answer; they can't.)
For that matter your "Shanks mare" is even worse from an efficiency standpoint, than riding a bicycle. How do we not rule Y-O-U off of public streets for polluting by walking? You, thats right you, are a walking bag of CO2 expelling "pollution".
And don't say the smarmy legal greeders wouldn't try. They have had no problem about driving the pharmaceutical industry to the wall, and the vaccines makers out of business; simply to make a buck that they could stuff into their pockets. And the health care people are angels compared to the stories that would be concocted against the "profit-seeking greedy bicycle makers". The legal phonies have sued and bankrupted Churches without batting an eye; they have stolen from the Charity poor boxes of Churches and kept their extorted millions of contingency fees; all the while self righteously condemning the weaknesses of some church leaders.
As the proverb goes "Beware of what you wish for; you just might get it!"
On reflection: The only thing that might be good is we might be able to tell the legal industry if you can't cut down your CO2/H2O hot air output like everybody else; you'll have to close down some lawyers. GOODY !!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Stan Peterson | May 21, 2007 1:44:46 PM
As Stan illustrates so nicely, never let common sense get in the way of a good rant.
Posted by: marcus | May 21, 2007 2:40:58 PM
Wow, I haven't read comment sections for awhile but it certainly surprise me that someone is still trying to argue about Climate Change. I don't even know why people bother. The prime motive to discredit Climate Change is to simply protect the status quo. Even as the old foes now admit that people are responsible for Climate Change, little changes have, or will occur in the immediate future.
I think higher energy and food costs probably have done more to sway public opinions than all this rhetoric.
Posted by: Charles S | May 21, 2007 2:51:10 PM
i used to like reading the commentatry here. it was always interesting to hear what smart, infomed, concerned people had to say. but i notice that since Stan Peterson started his aggresive, poorly informed, campaign to discredit everything and everybody, people are staying away. Sadly, it has become boring. Stan is pathetic. time for you to collect your bonus check Stan.
Posted by: Alejandro | May 21, 2007 2:52:11 PM
Since only the federal government can set fuel economy standards, are these regulations legal? Regulation of tailpipe CO2 is directly correlated with fuel efficiency. Since that is essentially a de facto efficiency standard.
If California wants to see more efficient vehicles, CARB needs to loosen NOx emissions slightly so we can get those 50mpg diesels they enjoy in Europe.
Also, has the state considered that if the waiver is granted and they go into effect, and the price of new vehicles goes up significantly, how many people will simply hold on to their older, less efficient vehicles longer?
And Stan:
If you want to have any credibility at all, don't rant. The only thing that matters in these arguments are facts, evidence, and peer-reviewed research. You're not doing yourself any favors right now.
Posted by: Cervus | May 21, 2007 2:52:53 PM
Cervus, I am no lawyer but common sense tells me that just because one thing follows another a lot of the time it doesn't mean they are necessarily one and the same thing. These points are taken from this pdf (http://www.calcleancars.org/factsheets/NRDC_0704.pdf):
The federal fuel economy law specifically provided for adjustments in
efficiency standards in the event that California or federal pollution rules make mileage standards more difficult to meet -- not the other way around.
• Today, the agency responsible for fuel economy standards, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, is required by law to take emissions rules and other standards into account before setting fuel economy performance targets.
• In the early days, air pollution standards tended to increase fuel consumption. Today that conflict is largely gone. The technology to meet today’s air pollution standards tends to improve fuel economy at the same time. This is true of the technologies to reduce vehicles’ global warming pollution.
• If the fuel economy law does not stand in the way of EPA or California air pollution standards when they make better fuel economy harder to achieve, it certainly doesn’t stand in the way when air pollution standards make better fuel economy easier to achieve.
As for loosening NOx emissions, I distinctly remember some European posts here saying the NOx emissions in Europe aren't all that "nice".
Posted by: marcus | May 21, 2007 3:31:15 PM
CO2 is not a "pollutant" in the sense that EPA defines pollutant. -- Stan Peterson
You might want to read the actual regulations.
It is a natural occurring and necessary trace gas.
Nitric oxide, in trace concentrations, is necessary for human health. In somewhat larger trace concentrations, say ppm levels, it will kill you. Water is necessary for life; too much water and you drown. What's your point?
You, thats right you, are a walking bag of CO2 expelling "pollution".
So ... where did that CO2 come from? And how long did it take for you to turn it back to CO2?
You may well have a point about pedaling a bicycle -- if as a result you lose weight. You as an organism would then be a net CO2 source over the period you lost weight. Over your lifetime -- especially the first 20 years or so -- you'd be carbon negative if you do not include combustion of carbon reserves that took longer than your lifetime to accumulate.
If California wants to see more efficient vehicles, CARB needs to loosen NOx emissions slightly so we can get those 50mpg diesels they enjoy in Europe. -- Cervus
Yes and no. A diesel in a Hummer H2 or Toyota Tundra ain't gonna get 50 mpg. Especially not at 80 mph. Consumers could take a little responsibility here, or at least ask themselves if they seriously think fuel isn't going to keep getting more expensive in the long run. But it would be nice to have a wider choice.
Posted by: cidi | May 21, 2007 3:38:50 PM
Marcus:
Some interesting points. I'll have to give it some thought.
Current NOx regs here are 1/6th that of Europe. The most stringent in the world. The technologies for meeting the T2b5/Lev II regs only barely meet them. Hence CARB's reluctance to certify Mercedes' BluTec system. Diesels have the additional benefit of being more flexible of fuel source, namely biodiesel, or xTL diesel.
However, I recently read that biofuels demand in Europe increased rainforest destruction in Brazil by 40% last year to raise soybeans. Clearly first generation biofuels are not the way to go.
Algae all the way.
Posted by: Cervus | May 21, 2007 3:59:19 PM
We already have 50mpg Priuses we enjoy in the U.S. In the future, we will have 50mpg diesels even with the new standards. But people will still need to drive smaller vehicles.
The Supreme Court ruling confirmed that co2 is a pollutant. The debate is over. This is about implementation. As usual, the federal government under Bush is dragging its feet.
Posted by: tom | May 21, 2007 4:01:20 PM
Cervus, regarding algae did you read this post at TOD?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2541#more
I didn't read all of it but it didn't sound as positive as I might have hoped...
Posted by: marcus | May 21, 2007 4:24:30 PM
Marcus:
No, it doesn't sound very positive. However, I should note that during the 40s engineers said that the sound barrier could not be broken. That it was a technological impossibility. Now, I do note that Dr. Benemann says that R&D should continue, but not to expect any silver bullets. However, he also thinks that there are no technological solutions to be found to our energy problems. He focuses on the demand side only.
As far as his expertise, his qualifications are undeniable. But I can only defer to him so far. We need more R&D to lower the costs. GreenShift's recent testing of their hybrid open pond/closed system is one direction. GreenFuel Tech is likely seeking others. I'm certain they are well aware of their cost issues. Perhaps they are expecting some form of carbon tax as well and recycled flue gases would end up a profitable enterprise with that in mind.
I'm not sure who is going to be correct at this point. Ultimately the only thing we can do is engage in some intensive R&D and investment.
Posted by: Cervus | May 21, 2007 4:46:50 PM
Hi All,
I would like to ask everybody the last time they have been out in a CO2 storm?
Rain is condensed water vapor, and it purges itself from the atmosphere all the time.
C02 does not readily purge itself. Yes there are some CO2 sinks, but nothing like billions and billions of gallons of rain water in the oceans.
Posted by: donee | May 21, 2007 8:47:17 PM
Charles -
The 'scientific consensus' on human-induced climate change is starting to slowly crumble; that's part of why it's 'climate change' now and no longer 'global warming'. I'm figuring that in another five years or so, we'll all look back at this and laugh.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 6:20:49 AM
Matthew...REALLY? Care to post a few links to back up that statement? Preferably none that have "drudgereport.com" in the URL.
Stan.... CRAZY ALERT, CRAZY ALERT!!! Make sure this wacko walks through a metal detector at every opportunity. He knows better than the vast majority of scientists. He knows better than the supreme court. WATCH OUT!!!
Posted by: Shlomo | May 22, 2007 7:19:22 AM
Shlomo -
Sure, since you asked so nicely:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
That gives a handful of respectable scientists who have recently jumped off the bandwagon. I suspect these are just the early few - there will certainly be more later.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 7:46:26 AM
Hmmm, let's try a more click-friendly version of that:
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 7:50:37 AM
Marcus,Cervus: The more I read TOD, the less credibility they have in my mind. It has become (maybe it always was) the biggest collection of doomers on the planet stuck in a negative feedback loop. They seem to spend all of their energies looking for reasons to be depressed. Too bad, they have some good points, but they're getting lost in cries of WOLF!. As for algae, as I remember it the main reason it dropped from sight in the 80s was for economic reasons. At 60$/bbl for oil and going up, I suspenct the money is there to make it work.
To anyone new to GCC: I don't know Stan. He's not with me. I don't know who let him out.
Posted by: Neil | May 22, 2007 8:09:57 AM
Neil:
That is why I don't bother with them, myself. Around here we mainly argue about new technologies, policy, and implementation.
Matthew:
I wouldn't hold your breath, honestly. Until there's a strong, competing theory for our climate problems, we should defer to the larger consensus.
Posted by: Cervus | May 22, 2007 8:49:22 AM
Cervus -
The thing is, the science is beginning to point toward natural causes for the observed variation. Once we understand this, the notion that we have a 'climate problem' will go away and there will be no need for a strong competing theory.
We'll likely end up with a strong research program into the natural drivers of climate, which will be perfectly fine, and the current hysteria will fade away as it always has in the past.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 9:18:09 AM
The amount of H2O the air can hold is dependent on air temperature. As CO2 causes temp to rise the amount of H2O will rise accordingly. A 1C rise will increase H2O by about one part per million.
As far as CO2 being both an essential ingredient in life and a pollutant consider the example of vitamin A. Vitamin A is an essential ingredient but in too high an amount causes disease, liver failure, and death. That CO2 levels are 30% higher than anytime in the last 650,000 years and that entire excess has grown in the last 50 years is cause for concern.
Posted by: tom deplume | May 22, 2007 10:18:06 AM
Science reports have progressively pinpointed the temperature increase as man made effects. If you look at the past reports, the recent reports have improved quantitative estimates on the effect of man made green-house gases.
As the polar icecaps are melting, the time for waiting should be over by now.
Posted by: Energex42 | May 22, 2007 10:39:51 AM
Matthew: that EPW story is from Marc Morano, whose background in climate science consists of being Rush Limbaugh's producer. Currently he is James Inhofe's lead cherry picker. Given the state of the literature this is cherry picking at its best. You'll have to find something a bit more compelling for those of us not in the head-in-sand crowd.
Posted by: cidi | May 22, 2007 12:08:46 PM
cidi -
Nice job attacking the source - can you do the same for the content? Did the people he quote not really say those things, or are those not really their qualifications, or what?
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 12:26:42 PM
Haha, I figured I'd wait until someone else called Matthew out on that. Mesa thinkin hesa Stan. I'll add him to my National Crazy Person Forecast alert system.
Matthew...CRAZY ALERT, CRAZY ALERT!!! :D
Posted by: Shlomo | May 22, 2007 2:30:23 PM
Haha, I figured I'd wait until someone else called Matthew out on that. Mesa thinkin hesa Stan. I'll add him to my National Crazy Person Forecast alert system.
Matthew...CRAZY ALERT, CRAZY ALERT!!! :D
Posted by: Shlomo | May 22, 2007 2:32:05 PM
Matthew: try this -- see for yourself. Don't let some political flunky -- of any persuasion -- do your homework for you. ISTR Science, Nature, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Science and Technology, and Geophysical Research Letters have been quoted on GCC recently. Those would be a good place to start. If you don't agree with their findings, ask the scientists themselves, not the political hacks (of any political stripe).
You'll find that there isn't quite universal consensus on climate change. But it's close, and the arguments are over details. You'll also see how much of a cherry-picker Morano is.
Posted by: cidi | May 22, 2007 2:42:01 PM
Shlomo - Please don't be a fool. At the very least, not in public.
cidi - Now you're just dancing around the issue. Did or did not those scientists climb off of the 'climate change' bandwagon, and are or are not they who and what the author of the article said they are?
I don't deny that Morano is cherry-picking. But as I said, we're just at the very beginning of a general breakup of the 'consensus'; it's only a handful of scientists who have recently come to their senses, so they have to be cherry picked. But mark my words, this tiny trickle will turn into quite the flood over the next few years.
Posted by: Matthew | May 22, 2007 3:16:33 PM
Again...CRAZY ALERT!!! The current crazy storm has been upgraded to a cat 4, and has been named Stanmatt.
The surest sign of a crazy person is when they say: "Mark my words" or something to that effect. They are living in a future fantasy world and address anyone around them as if it has already come to pass. No use explaining to them that they are crazy, just like there is no use in explaining to a belligerent drunk that they are a belligerent drunk.
But it is fun to mess with them, especially financially. Give them a few up days on an otherwise junk stock, tell them that an "expert" has gone against all the other financial advisers who say its junk, and you can fleece them good. "Mark my words, this stock is gonna pop!" Fool. :D
Posted by: Shlomo | May 22, 2007 5:17:11 PM
Although this is a pointless argument about the existence global warming, it sure is an entertaining one!
Matt: at least you hang in there civilly. But my question is, without global warming (and ensuing regulations) to spur them on, who's going to make my new fuel efficient car? I see only positive effects coming out of our battle against what you are calling a fiction. If so, who cares, let's all battle on, end our wasteful, noisy, toxic ways and save a ton of money!
Posted by: Jeff R | May 22, 2007 10:11:50 PM
If so, who cares, let's all battle on, end our wasteful, noisy, toxic ways and save a ton of money!
Indeed. There are plenty of good reasons to push for cleaner and greener cars, homes, energy generation, et cetera that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. I'm all for that.
I dig my heels in when people start demanding that we ban coal-fired plants, ban SUVs, put disruptive taxes on air travel, et cetera, because if we don't global warming will kill us all.
That's why arguing about global warming isn't pointless; if the warming is in fact natural, all of the reasonable and otherwise beneficial efforts to mitigate it will do nothing, and the easily led among us (*cough*cough*shlomo*cough*cough) will start to demand the truly radical 'solutions' that will cause far more harm than good.
Posted by: Matthew | May 23, 2007 4:50:09 AM
Stanmatt, you want radical? How about Nuremberg style proceedings in 20 years for people such as yourself? "Mark my words" it'll happen, if (of course) human influenced climate change is real. But hey, you say it is not, that the still vast majority of scientists is wrong, and that you and a tiny minority of scientists know better. You better hope you're right. But with those odds, you better steer clear of Vegas as you'll lose your shirt. Again, I got a stock for ya! :D
P.S. The other possibility is that you are not willfully crazy, but actually have a vested interest in Business As Usual. In that case, you are simply a criminal who is happy to hang the future of the human race out to dry while you make a buck. If that's not a capitol offense, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Shlomo | May 23, 2007 5:23:22 AM
Now you're just dancing around the issue. Did or did not those scientists climb off of the 'climate change' bandwagon, and are or are not they who and what the author of the article said they are?
Sure, I'll take them at face value. I think differing opinions are crucial, with one condition, and that is that they lay out their explanations for all to see. That's the same condition for any scientist. If their ideas can withstand critical scrutiny, great, that's how science is supposed to work. If their ideas cannot, well, maybe we've all learned something in the process anyway.
But if they are not willing to lay out their theories, then cherry picking their opinions is like selecting data points several standard deviations from the mean and claiming they have statistical relevance.
As for your other claim about the general consensus "breaking up", umm, where's the beef? Would scientists who did not believe in AGW but who now do carry any weight with you?
Posted by: cidi | May 23, 2007 9:35:55 AM
Cidi, nice retort, but remember, he's either CRAZY, or a CRIMINAL. So your response will do nothing.
What I like about the people on that list is that they do not put fourth compelling evidence which is equal to the compelling evidence which exists in favor of human influenced climate change. They say things like "its the sun's luminosity", and "C02 makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere that humans couldn't change it if they wanted to". None of them has anything close to even a small percentage of evidence in their favor when compared to the mountain of evidence against.
Since human experience is based on the best-guess approach as it is impossible to prove an absolute, right now it is our best guess, based on overwhelming evidence, that humans are accelerating global climate change over and above any natural cycle.
For example, is it possible to PROVE that cigarette smoke causes cancer? Nope. No way to prove it absolutely. Maybe one day, with a nano-probe which can track the supposed carcinogens and observe how they cause a cell to mutate. But now? Can't prove it. Just because statistics and observation seem to point to it does not make it a certainty. But certainly there is a statistical possibility that all the people who developed lung cancer and happened to be smokers was just coincidence. Should we then reverse all the fines imposed on the cigarette industry and legislated controls/limitations placed on it as well? Stanmatt would have to answer yes to this.
Now, another thing to consider about these people is that if they truly wished to build a case, they would do so in a professional manor, and behind the scenes, until such time as it was appropriate to go public. These people are simply spewing vaporous theories with no real studies or peer reviewed science to back them up. Why would they do this? ATTENTION! These days, human influenced climate change is globally accepted, so the media doesn't much care about it anymore. BUT, the naysays still grab attention. Say it with enough conviction and people will assume it is true.
So, you want attention? You want some back-room payoffs from the US and Australian governments? Become a naysayer.
Stanmatt, you are a dangerous fool, or a vicious criminal.
Posted by: Shlomo | May 23, 2007 11:22:19 AM
Would scientists who did not believe in AGW but who now do carry any weight with you?
Some, but not as much. See, it's the nature of bandwagons for people to get on them. I'm more moved by those who are willing to risk reputation, career, and research grants to get off of one.
Posted by: Matthew | May 23, 2007 12:00:08 PM
I love it. This fool (or criminal) Stanmatt is comparing peer reviewed science to a "bandwagon". You are such a shameful human being it is almost humorous. Problem is, you and your ilk will likely delay action just long enough for the true tipping point to pass. History will not be kind to you, Stanmatt. I only hope you live long enough to be held accountable in a very tangible fashion.
Posted by: Shlomo | May 23, 2007 9:08:48 PM
Ah, this topic has fallen off the main list, so I can indulge myself and now pay you that attention you so desperately crave...
Let me guess, Slow-mo, you got beat up a lot as a kid, right? Maybe you're still getting beat up, not that it really matters. You've never been one of the cool kids, or part of the 'in' crowd, have you?
It's obvious from your comments here that you've finally found acceptance in the global warming club - mostly because they'll take anyone. And now you're working on your revenge fantasies, what with your dreams of Nuremberg-style war crimes trials. You can't wait to get all of us who were better/smarter/richer/better looking than you as a kid, can you?
News flash: ain't gonna happen. Your every word here gives it away - you are a loser. In your case, probably every cause you've ever attached yourself to has been a loser, and AGW is no exception. As always for you, you'll be a laughingstock when scientists finally give up on global warming and we all go back and read how you were going to string us up for doubting you.
And on the off chance that global warming is real? I hope you enjoy your victory, because you're going to be another sweaty prole riding on a packed bus of deodorant-free fellow proles everywhere you go. Because that's the fate of losers in the brave new world you're longing for.
Later, Slow-mo.
Posted by: Matthew | May 24, 2007 6:36:31 AM
See, it's the nature of bandwagons for people to get on them.
Hmm. "Bandwagons". Nothing about merit of the arguments. OK.
Posted by: cidi | May 24, 2007 9:22:13 AM
Sorry cidi, but the question was about scientists moving into and out of the general consensus, not about the relative validity of their claims.
As far as the claims themselves go, I'll be more impressed when they can accurately model melting in the Arctic, or guess to within less than seventy years when the Southern Ocean will have its fill of carbon dioxide.
Heck, just explain to me why whatever is that is driving global warming on Mars (where all the SUVs are solar powered) and the outer planets isn't driving global waming here as well - that will be a good start.
yes, I'm asking a lot - but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
Posted by: Matthew | May 24, 2007 10:28:14 AM
Oh you silly little cowardly bully, I pushed you until you showed your true colors. Works every time. I love how you behave so predictably: "Ah, this topic has fallen off the main list, so I can indulge myself..." Bullys always try to wait until nobody is looking. Would only that you could actually know me, and know how wrong you are. But then again, bullies are never that swift, and are always cowards once they encounter someone whom they know will knock them down.
So, genius, you wanted to know about what's causing Mars to warm? Well here you go, fool:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1
To sum it up, ITS ANOTHER PLANET with a TOTALLY DIFERENT ATMOSPHERE. Any third grader knows you can't compare one planet's atmospheric interactions with another. Read the link, then slink back under your rock, bully. I've pasted a few bullies in my time, one-to-on back when I was young, and in more civil forums such as this one now. There are many like me out there, and we have an inner grin when one of you comes along, begging for a pasting. If only the Democrats could do the same to your ignorant bully pals on the right.
Now, you interested in that stock? I actually got a few for ya! :D
Posted by: Shlomo | May 24, 2007 11:13:10 AM
Darn, Shlomo, you beat me to it. I wanted to post that very article. I've been watching this Matthew person with his smug, yet completely ignorant attitude. Very worrisome how many people are just like him. I guess the more you try to prove it to them, the more they take it as an insult to their honor, so they'd rather stick with their position to the end. Too many times in history this has caused the downfalls of civilizations.
But Shlomo, you did sink to his level a bit. Maybe people like him need to be confronted on their own terms, but I'd be careful if I were you.
Posted by: Anon-E-Mouse | May 24, 2007 11:18:28 AM
Good grief, you two are total dingbats. Did you even read that article? Let me help you with a couple of the high points:
But when this reddish dust is churned up by violent winds, the storm-ravaged surface loses its reflective qualities and more of the Sun's heat is absorbed into the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise.
Did either of you pause even for a moment to wonder *why* the winds are increasing on Mars? What do you suppose the primary driver of winds might be on a dead planet with no oceans?
Its authors, led by Lori Fenton, a planetary scientist at NASA, describe the phenomenon as a "positive feedback" system -- in other words, a vicious circle, in which changes in albedo strengthen the winds which in turn kicks up more dust, in turn adding to the warming.
Isn't this what scientists tell us will send us over some 'tipping point' into climate hell? And yet, Mars still has ice caps and whatnot. Unless we're to believe that this is the first time in all of history that winds have picked up, these vicious circles don't seem to be quite the menace to climate that AGW proponents insist.
Exactly what triggers the planet's so-called "global dust storms" remains a mystery.
I put that one in bold, since you both missed it the first time around. I bet they've got an idea, though.
And now, on to the fun stuff:
Oh you silly little cowardly bully, I pushed you until you showed your true colors.
Let me get this straight...you spend a couple of days heaping abuse on me in an otherwise civil discussion, and *I* am the bully because I wait until I can avoid offending most of the participants on this blog before responding to you? I'm sorry I couldn't make you feel big and important by satisfying your need for attention right off the bat, but that's not what I come here for.
I do hope I've made it up to you at least a little bit here, even if only a couple of other people are around to see it.
Posted by: Matthew | May 24, 2007 12:09:07 PM
Mathew, you need to understand that your posts are ripe with smugness. Smugness is just another form of hostility, though some think they can maintain plausible deniability by being as such.
That aside, I will not engage in overt hostilities with you. But I am very confused by your conflicting posts. First you seem to indicate (as do other known opponents) that Mars warming up, yet having no known source of C02, shows that something else is at work, maybe solar output. They then follow with something along the lines of "hence, C02 is not warming Earth's atmosphere". But, this study shows it has to do with the dust content. So it seems obvious that Mars is a completely different system and not analogous to Earth in any way. Just as Venus is not either, even though it does show what a run away greenhouse effect can do.
You asked for an explanation of why Mars was warming. The most recent one was given. It has nothing to do with Earth, human activities, or anything other than Mars.
I now, respectfully, sign off from this thread.
Posted by: Anon-E-Mouse | May 24, 2007 2:06:41 PM
Mathew, you need to understand that your posts are ripe with smugness.
Perhaps so. Smugness, while annoying to some, is qualitatively different than childlike name-calling and taunting. If the worst sin I commit here is being smug, I think I'm doing quite well.
That aside, I will not engage in overt hostilities with you.
Well, that's very kind of you. I have to wonder why you felt it necessary to get in on the name-calling in the first place, however.
First you seem to indicate (as do other known opponents) that Mars warming up, yet having no known source of C02 [...]
I'm guessing you will be surprised to learn that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, then?
[...] shows that something else is at work, maybe solar output.
Solar output, really? Do you suppose that could have anything to do with the warming we are experiencing here?
So it seems obvious that Mars is a completely different system and not analogous to Earth in any way.
Except for sharing that potentially-brightening Sun, of course, which may well be driving climate change on both planets.
You asked for an explanation of why Mars was warming. The most recent one was given.
No, they DO NOT KNOW why Mars is warming, other than that the winds have picked up. The winds are merely an intermediate cause, not the root cause.
Posted by: Matthew | May 24, 2007 5:06:15 PM
Yes, I know what the atmosphere of Mars is made up of. I meant (and was not clear about) that there is no source of C02 buildup as there is here on earth.
I am not a scientist. However, I will go with what the currently large majority of professional scientists are saying. If solar output is a contributing factor, then let peer reviewed science prove it. If human influences are simply accelerating a natural cycle, the end is the same: global climate disaster on a human life-span time scale, rather than over centuries or millenia.
Anyway, I guess I didn't sign off as I said, but I think I've made myself clear now.
Oh yes, smugness is in fact considered to be hostile amongst behavioral scientists. See American Dictionary:
smug (smŭg) Pronunciation Key
adj. smug·ger, smug·gest
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation; self-righteously complacent: "the smug look of a toad breakfasting on fat marsh flies" (William Pearson).
Posted by: Anon-E-Mouse | May 24, 2007 5:53:06 PM
Matthew, take it to realclimate and learn something.
Posted by: marcus | May 24, 2007 11:06:03 PM
Give it up, I have. This absurd little wacko is never going to change his stripes, and will insist upon having the last word. Give it to him. Heck, even if God bestowed him with the power to know for certain, he would still maintain a denier position due to his pathetic ego. One day, things will balance out, they always do. I think there is a new special room for them down there, the "Falwell Banquet Hall".
Posted by: Shlomo | May 25, 2007 5:10:29 AM
