quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: CO2 is NOT a pollutant! This is just all a huge scam being perpetrated by the wacko left!
quote: CO2 in the political spotlight
Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).
The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.
posted
Yeah, well, lead is naturally occurring. So is mercury. It doesn't really take that much of either of those polluting your kids brain and he will only grow up physically, if at all.
There are all manner of "naturally occurring" things that left in their natural state and condition are relatively harmless.
But after we subject billions of tons of it to refinement or some other process and leave it "unnaturally" scattered about the environment, it isn't "naturally" occurring anymore, it is now occurring according to human disposition and it is way way more dangerous than it was in its "naturally occurring" conditions.
CO2 no longer occurs in any "naturally occurring" manner AND IT IS OUR FAULT.
IP: Logged |
"If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it," said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue.
he's a nutcase: In March 2000, the University of Oklahoma dismissed the sexual harassment charges filed against Deming.[59] However, four of the complainants filed appeals, resulting in a closed hearing before a faculty panel that took place on April 27, 2000. The Center for Individual Rights (CIR) "questioned the decision to bar lawyers from speaking at the April 27 hearing. In response, the University set up a hearing for May 5. There, in a public forum, OU and general consul Joseph Harroz dropped all complaints"[60] In a memorandum, Harroz explained that "the University may not take any adverse action against Dr. Deming," because his statements were protected by the First Amendment.[6
how come every time i read about how climate change is BS i look up the person quoted and find wierdness?
this guys wiki article is full of oddball and conrtoversial stuff.. the harrassment cases were the result of a crude and vulgar student newspaper article he penned. regardless of whether i agree or disagree with him? i wouldn't consider sending my kid to study at anywhere near him.
not to mention that he is an associate editor for the academic journal Petroleum Geoscience which by it's very name would tell us who it supports...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Global warming is NOT a "hoax." Is there controversy/disagreements between scientists? Yes. However, if we really are in dispute over this, isn't it best to error on the side of what is best? This is one area where I part ways with people on the right.
-------------------- "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging." -H. Ross Perot
IP: Logged |
posted
Ice melting across globe at accelerating rate, NASA says
About 2 trillion tons of ice have melted in Greenland, Antarctica, Alaska since 2003 Lost amount of water could fill up Chesapeake Bay 21 times, NASA scientist says Most came from Greenland, where losses raised global sea levels .5 mm annually Scientist says sea levels rising 50 percent faster than 15 years ago
By Emanuella Grinberg CNN (CNN) -- Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.
Using new satellite technology that measures changes in mass in mountain glaciers and ice sheets, NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke concluded that the losses amounted to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.
"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing," said Luthcke, who will present his findings this week at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, California.
NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, mission uses two orbiting satellites to measure the "mass balance" of a glacier, or the net annual difference between ice accumulation and ice loss.
"A few degrees of change [in temperature] can increase the amount of mass loss, and that contributes to sea level rise and changes in ocean current," Luthcke said.
The data reflects findings from NASA colleague Jay Zwally, who uses different satellite technology to observe changing ice volume in Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica.
In the past five years, Greenland has lost between 150 gigatons and 160 gigatons each year, (one gigaton equals one billion tons) or enough to raise global sea levels about .5 mm per year, said Zwally, who will also present his findings at the conference this week.
GRACE measured that mountain glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska lost about 84 gigatons each year, about five times the average annual flow of the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, according to NASA.
"Every few extra inches of sea level have very significant economic impacts, because they change the sea level, increase flooding and storm damage," said, Zwally, ICESat Project Scientist. "It's a warning sign."
Melting ice, especially in Greenland and the Arctic, is also thought to contribute to global warming, Zwally said. When the vast ice sheets and glaciers melt, they lose their reflective power, and instead, oceans and land absorb the heat, causing the Arctic waters and the atmosphere to warm faster.
"We're seeing the impacts of global warming in many areas of our own lives, like agriculture," Zwally said.
As an example, he cited the pine beetle infestation of this summer in the forests of Colorado and western Canada.
"They were believed to be spreading because the winter was not cold enough to kill them, and that's destroying forests," he said.
In the 1990s, Greenland took in as much snow and water as it let out, Zwally said. But now, about 15 years later, sea levels are rising about 50 percent faster, making the global climate situation even more unpredictable.
"The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what's going on and how fast things are changing, there's a lot of uncertainty," he said.
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
