As Roger Pielke Jr. points out at Prometheus, there is a scientific error in Justice Stevens' Massachusetts v. EPA opinion:
there is a science error in the majority opinion, though it seems clear that it would not change their judgment of injury. It states:
. . . global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming.
According to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report this value is more like 3 to 5.5 centimeters (from figure 11.10b here) with the rest of the 10 to 20 centimeters total due to natural causes. The Supreme Court has attributed all sea level rise to global warming which is incorrect.
As Pielke goes on to note, this error is not particularly material to the majority's conclusions — it would have found standing even had it relied upon the correct estimates for warming's contribution to sea-level rise — but it is worth noting nonetheless.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Justice Stevens' Scientific Mistake:
- More Mass v. EPA Commentary:
Justice Stevens misquotes the relevant affadavit. The MacCracken affidavit, for instance, does not attribute all 20th century sea-level rise to global warming.
JHA
"On the basis of the published literature, we therefore cannot rule out an average rate of sea level rise of as little as 1.0 mm/yr during the 20th century. For the upper bound, we adopt a limit of 2.0 mm/yr, which includes all recent global estimates with some allowance for systematic uncertainty."
1.0-2.0mm/year == 10-20cm rise in a 100-year period (20th century).
The part of the report that you linked to only covers thermal expansion. It did not cover sea level rise as a result of melting ice.
Also... zforce: Water vapor isn't added to the atmosphere by any anthropogenic source. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a direct result of the temperature of the earth (more heat means more evaporation). Thus; regulating CO2 emissions results in regulating water vapor to some extent.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Want is a fish that grows with the size of its habitat."
One cannot rely on a dictionary (notice how he picked a different dictionary for Mass v. EPA than for Rapanos!), to invent such scientific ideas as pollution does not in fact flow downstream and that CO2 and other GHGs are not air. It's mind-boggling.
Secondly, I wonder why the Scalia four bothered to dissent at all. If they truly believed that the case should have been decided on standing grounds, a less activist position would have been to issue the standing dissent, and save what amounts to an advisory opinion dissent on the merits.
What the? Are you suggesting that "believing that global warming is real" is somehow the result of an atheist conspiracy? Or perhaps you're suggesting that global warming is a good alternative to believing in a god?
More importantly: What the hell does theism/atheism have to do with global warming, Justice Stevens reference, or even the legal questions surrounding this case? Absolutely nothing.
If you don't think global warming is happening and/or it is all part of god's plan/left-wing conspiracies just come out and say it. Don't beat around the bush with odd snide remarks!
Lets assume you're a religious nut. You might start out by saying, "I believe that a mismatch of 6000-year-old stories is the one and only source of truth. Therefore; I can justify anything I say or do based off of my own interpretation thereof and anything that is incompatible with my beliefs will get no consideration."
Then none of us will get confused and we can move on to more useful and insightful comments.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I refuse to believe in creationism because when you blame a supreme being for creationists you're giving up on human evolution."
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, but water vapor is a principle component of exhaust from any combustion. This water vapor does not instantaneously equalize to the a priori partial-pressure for just the same reason that our CO2 emissions do not; this is process is governed by Ficks law.
The court, in my opinion, really erred by discussing climate change at all. Under the statutory text a nexus between CO2 and climate change is something that EPA has to establish. The EPA also has to establish a nexus between climate change and harm to the public welfare.
Whether such a nexus exists is irrelevant to the question of whether the EPA must upon petition evaluate CO2 for such relationships under the statute. That the majority strayed into discussing the nexus questions directly discredits their opinion greatly.
But if you think you can score political points by attacking the religiosity of those who are concerned by these issues, be my guest. You discredit only yourself.
I think the commenter above has got you here. If I remember correctly, there was an article in The Atlantic back in the late 90s discussing this very issue: that CO2 regulations were all fine and good, but given that waper vapor is an unavoidable byproduct of combustion, and since water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, Kyoto and all its accoutrements weren't going to do us any good. I may be misrecalling the thesis of the article, but at any rate, it seems to me that zforce has a decent point.
Random commenter is mostly correct. It is a comment about the quasi-religious nature of belief in man-made global warming (global warming itself is beyond dispute). But it is also a comment on the nature of human belief systems. I will wager that the man-made-global-warming crowd is largely, if not exclusively, made of professed atheists. This is the case because there is a lacuna in their psychological make-up that needs filing. That lacuna is the question of their reason for being. Religious people have that answer and needn't seek some half-baked idea to give them meaning. That doesn't mean the religious person doesn't also have a half-baked idea. It just means they will not be attracted to global warming.
You know, you bring up and interesting point that doesn't come up much in global warming debates: How much water is produced when you burn fossil fuels and how much does that water have an effect on the climate?
Here's the fact: For every gallon of gasoline that you burn, you get 8 pounds of water (almost a gallon!). You'd think that would have at least as significant impact as CO2 considering that water vapor traps considerably more heat. However, it doesn't work like that because...
* Water vapor has a residence factor in the atmosphere of about 10 days. That means it falls back to the earth (and stops trapping heat) in a very short time frame. Too short to have an effect on the amount of heat trapped under the troposphere. Compare this to the residence time of carbon dioxide which stays in the atmosphere for about 100 years.
It is temperature of the air that effects how much water vapor exists in the atmosphere which in turn effects how much heat is trapped. Thus; water vapor is a feedback and not a force (like CO2).
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"If you elect leaders that act irresponsibly towards nature, you'll find that irresponsibility is the nature of your leaders."
Actually, Cato, the dissent conveniently glosses over the fact that CO2 is defined in the CAA as an "air pollutant" in section 103(g) of the Act. The dissent also ignores the word "shall" in section 202, which appears to compel some EPA action. The failure of Congress to act subsequently, in addition, to what it has already done in the CAA is of no consequence at all.
This is assuming that there exists such a lacuna in the first place. Needing a "reason for being" is a belief in itself. I contend that we do not need a reason for being and will stand by this claim by stating that the mere existence of a person that has no concern over such matters disproves it.
...unless you're confusing a "reason for being" with "a hobby, or otherwise something to keep a person preoccupied and happy" in which case I'd agree. No one wants to be bored out of their mind and people generally want to feel good about what they're doing. Combine these two principals together and you can wind up with a lot of people supporting any given cause that makes them feel good and keeps them preoccupied. It has nothing to do with an inherent "need to believe".
Cato also wrote, "I will wager that the man-made-global-warming crowd is largely, if not exclusively, made of professed atheists."
Then you're delusional. Last time I checked, "professed atheists" made up about 3% of the population of the U.S. Knowing that, consider the following Time/ABC/Stanford University poll from March, 2006:
...or are you arguing that there are considerably more self-professed atheists than are self-professing in polls?
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"An existence that demands the insertion and spread of its message is known as a virus."
Let me say that there's another point, a legal one, worth making in response to the snide, smart-aleck point made by the global-warming deniers: "What, next they'll be having to regulate the steam when I boil pasta (or the farts of cows or you name it)!" The answer is, of course, that neither Congress or the EPA is required to regulate everything that it might theoretically (but perhaps not as a practical matter) be beneficial to regulate. If Congress, for example, chooses to legislate a partial remedy for a problem, it is perfectly free to do so, and the possibility that a more comprehensive remedy could have been enacted does not make Congress's choice improper. In this case, it is a partial remedy to the problem to regulate the CO2 emissions of automobiles, and hardly an impractical one, since we regulate those emissions already. That's what this case is about, and wise-guy remarks are beside the point.
Wait, it's not proper to argue that way?
It's not even close to being the "same argument." First, no one has suggested, and the Court did not hold, that Massachusetts has a "claim" against drivers, or against the automobile industry, in the sense of a private cause of action for damages. Could the federal government adopt regulations regarding, say, the shape and size of ships navigating U.S. waters, so as to force shipbuilders to construct designs to minimize eroson damage caused by waves? I believe that it could if it wanted to, but no one would say that it already has, which was the argument accepted by the Court with regard to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts v. EPA.
We know how much water is displaced by each ship, we know the inertial resistance (i believe its called Mu, but I can't type the Greek letter for it) of water, we know salinity of various parts of the ocean, the weight of each boat, the speed, etc. We may even have less assumptions about ships' contribution to coastal degradation than there are of car exhausts' contribution to global warming and that won't even require billions of dollars in grant money. Maybe we need billion more in incentives too!
Stevens was completely accurate and the only error made was by Pielke.
When it rains, it pours. H2O molecules, specifically =)
Or to put it more plainly: Water vapor in the atmosphere is only there because it is constantly replenished. If we were somehow able to halt all water evaporation on earth completely for 10 days there would be very little water vapor left in the atmosphere.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
Also, the real root cause of global warming is that we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster than the rate at which the environment can absorb it. It really isn't that much different than overfishing or hunting a species to extinction. The rate at which you take from or dump into the environment must equate to the rate at which it can renew itself from such damage. This is what environmentalism is all about: Sustainability.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world." -John Muir, naturalist, explorer, and writer (1838-1914)
So if your biggest concern is erosion from waves the proper course of action would be to limit greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. Once that is done, you can focus on the small fry (boats) and demand no-wake boat designs (which actually do exist).
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I believe that no belief has a right to be free from criticism. Even this one."
"It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant.'"
So non-man-made forces have caused most of this tremendous acceleration in the sea level's rising? Holy global warming, Cato, what's going on here?
The satellite is clearly an atheist.
I realize the whole point of this tangent is to attempt some Coulteresque smear of godless liberals, but still, I find the whole line of argument more offensive to people of faith than anything, in that it characterizes them as a bunch of sheep who don't need to get fired up over a worldly issue because their faith in God keeps them happy.
Like it or not, people of faith have long been in the forefront of causes that make the world a better place, whether the issue may be poverty, hunger, preservation of the environment, or what have you. There is certainly no shortage of humans who care passionately about global warming because they believe the earth is God's gift to us and we have a sacred charge to preserve it for future generations.
It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that global warming is some atheistic cause, and people are drawn to the issue for religious as well as secular reasons. How sad to see anyone suggest that religious people have any less commitment to a "cause."
Figure b here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/426.htm#fig1110
The total increase in the 20th century was 10 to 20 cm. The difference between 3-5.5 and 10-20 is due to natural causes.
Justice Kennedy is only correct if by "global warming" he meant global warming due to both human and non-human causes. From the context he obviously mean human-causes, which is how the term "global warming" is used throughout the ruling.
It is an error, but not one that the ruling hinges upon.
Not A cause, this cause.
It is hard to top that blooper.
However, I felt I should mention that the carbon cycle is still poorly understood. Sea life fixes CO2 into CaCO3, a process that can be effected by both atmospheric CO2 levels as well as ocean conditions.
Furthermore, while water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere long, the addition of water to the ecosystem can significantly alter the environment, and thus the temperature. CO2 fertilization also appears to poison tree proxies, making the accuracy of tree ring studies for temperature records a matter of controversy.
It's all one very complex system.
Oh, you mean is is only correct if he wrote what he wrote and not what you imagined that he wrote?
And, presumably you mean Justice Stevens, not Justice Kennedy. (That is at least your second mistake today, so I hope you are not planning on doing surgery or operating heavy machinery today since we all know mistakes come in threes.)
Worth noting? Sure if you're trying to discredit the majority opinion by nitpicking minor details.
Moreover, CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. It only appears to do so because its diffusion constant is slow . The flux-out increases as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. The partial pressure of CO2 will increase until the flux in matches the flux out. This is true for sun light, it is true for CO2, and it is true for water vapor. On top of that you have a lag to reach equilibrium.
This lag is not as you claim 100 years. 300Gt/yr of CO2 is released. 6Gt/yr of that is from man-made activities. The atmospheric content of CO2 has been increasing by roughly 3Gt/yr.
The dominate effect is not as you claim involving biological processes. The dominate effect to how much CO2 is retained in the atmosphere is from the partial-pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to its dissolved content in the oceans. Which as I said before, depends on the diffusion constant and on the solubility of CO2 in water. Both of which depend on temperature and concentration and neither of which have been pinned for earth's oceans. Note: your biological effect plays a part here as well.
How is this "worth noting"? It would be akin to a threadjack here over the fact that the word "opinion" is misspelled in Adler's post.
Is the EPA now required to regulate all of these sources? Is the Belgian Barbeque tax going to adopted by the EPA?
Hmmmm, if the EPA is required to regulate CO2 emmissions, then I seem to recall that these are also CO2 sources:
No, but they may have to go through rulemaking procedure if requested which is, you know, what the case is about.
The principal emissions of volcanos, in order, are water vapor followed by carbon dioxide. Volcanic activity is the principal non-biologic source of C02 emissions.
300 gigatons of CO2 entering the atmosphere yearly per the anonymous post, of which humans recently have supplied 6, means that significant sustained volcanic activity in one area can produce a rapid sustained and significant rise in global C02 emissions. We have an incredible number of such widespread geographic and sustained volcanic events in the geologic record.
Homo sapiens was almost exterminated by the pre-historic Toba eruption 75,000 years ago just from the global cold from soot and sulphuric particle injections into the upper atmosphere.
Homo sapiens is very susceptible to atmospheric C02 concentrations above about 0.1%. Predecessor species would have been less so, and non-human mammals still less so.
Significant periodic sustained volcanic activity of the sort abundantly known in the geologic record in the past million years has certainly pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to produce biologically dangerous concentrations to mammals for sustained periods which would have produced observeable results in the paleontological record. But it isn't there.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."
So there is some natural damper to sudden biologically significant surges in atmospheric concentration. And, as our anonymous commentator observed, that is the greater oceanic absorbtion rate when the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 exceeds that of dissolved CO2.
And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords!
... we know the inertial resistance (i believe its called Mu, but I can't type the Greek letter for it) ...
No need to type it! Just use [ampersand]mu[semicolon] (replace the stuff in brackets with the appropriate single character) and you get ... μ.
As I'm pretty sure has been mentioned before in comments pertaining to this case, what you and others who seem to think that some form of this argument is a witty reductio ad absurdum fail to recall is that the definition of "air pollutant" in question applies to emissions from "new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines." 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). That's all that the EPA is required to regulate. Not barbecues. Not flatulence, or Frisbees, or plant emissions. I'm sure five more people will pop up in comments with the same specious reductio before the conversation dies down, but a little attention to the text of the statute and the actual scope of the opinion would be nice.
I cannot find anywhere in the report anything that states this. The report, in fact, states nothing at all regarding "natural" VS "unnatural" causes. It is all about "how much" and posits that the acceleration of sea level rise is likely due to human activity. For reference, here's what the report says, explicitly about it: "In the models, at least a third of 20th century anthropogenic eustatic sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion, which has a geographically non-uniform signal in sea level change."
In other words, thermal expansion as a result of global warming as a result of human activity accounts for at least a third of the 10-20mm rise in sea levels during the 20th century. The rest of the sea level rise is either unexplained/not enough data/accuracy (which they make reference to several times in the paper) or from glaciers, ice sheets and ice caps. All of which are feedbacks from global warming caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which the IPCC says is "highly likely" due to human activity.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Women don't want to hear that they're pretty. They want to hear that their air is alluring and that they're clever with complementary configurations."
Not really. The GOP-sycophantic leadership of the Religiious Right poop-poohs global warming out of loyalty to their patrons, but at ground level you will concern over global warming has become a focus of evangleical Christianity, much to the chagrin of Mssrs. Dobson et all.
Re: CO2 fertilization also appears to poison tree proxies
??!!?
CO2 is a nutrient for all forms of photosynthetic plant life (e.g., trees). At very high concentrations I suppose it could have malign effects, but the story of the last 40 million years-- the emergence of grasses and the decline of forests-- has been the tale of too little CO2 in the atmosphere requiring a major adaptation on the part of plant life to survive.
Re: Homo sapiens is very susceptible to atmospheric C02 concentrations above about 0.1%. Predecessor species would have been less so, and non-human mammals still less so.
Again, huh? Since our respiration is in no wise different from that of other mammals, how is it that humans are singled out for troubles with CO2 while cats, badgers, kangaroos and the rest of our mammalian kinfolk are getting off scot-free?
The caption from this figure in the IPCC report says the following:
"The mid-range and upper and lower bounds for the computed response of sea level to climate change (the sum of the terms in (a) plus the contribution from permafrost). These curves represent our estimate of the impact of anthropogenic climate change on sea level during the 20th century."
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/426.htm#fig1110
Eyeballing the chart shows the figures at about 30-60 mm.
You know, you're right. CO2 doesn't actually accumulate in the atmosphere like sediment accumulates on the bottom of a lake. Now that we've clarified the obvious, let me state that this effect is very similar to the way an anonymous commenter may appear to be making a counterpoint, but upon careful analysis they're really only just spouting unimportant nonsense.
Moving on, anonymous wrote, "The principal emissions of volcanos, in order, are water vapor followed by carbon dioxide. Volcanic activity is the principal non-biologic source of C02 emissions."
You know, I think there's a game for things like this... Global warming bingo? Whenever someone brings up volcanic activity in a global warming argument it is usually very safe to assume they're starting to hit a brick wall when it comes to popular-yet-widely-discredited arguments. Thank you for pointing out that volcanic activity is the largest non-biological emitter of CO2. I can play the fact game too: Volcanic activity emits 0.15Gt/year of CO2. Or, 0.02% of what humans emit. Thanks for playing!
OK, now it is time to shoot down your complete and utter BS: "This lag is not as you claim 100 years. 300Gt/yr of CO2 is released. 6Gt/yr of that is from man-made activities. The atmospheric content of CO2 has been increasing by roughly 3Gt/yr."
First of all, humans emit 7Gt/year. Secondly, I was being conservative with the 100-year residence time of CO2. Estimates vary, but Wikipedia says it is probably closer to 200-450 years (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses). Also, if you're going to claim I'm wrong on a numerical fact, state the actual numerical fact! It is like me saying the sky is blue and then you saying I'm wrong without ever looking up at the sky.
Finally, you wrote, "The dominate effect is not as you claim involving biological processes. The dominate effect to how much CO2 is retained in the atmosphere is from the partial-pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to its dissolved content in the oceans. Which as I said before, depends on the diffusion constant and on the solubility of CO2 in water. Both of which depend on temperature and concentration and neither of which have been pinned for earth's oceans. Note: your biological effect plays a part here as well."
All I can say is, "WTF?" The "dominate effect" of you posting this paragraph is me scratching my head and wondering if you're currently on a controlled substance. How about I follow-up with a reply in a similar vein?
The dominate effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is not as you claim not involving biological processes. The dominate effect of how much CO2 is retained in the atmosphere is the rate at which biological organisms can absorb it. The most dominate of these is phytoplankton which draw carbon dioxide from the air via photosynthesis.
Also, for reference, carbon dioxide in has a diffusion coefficient 0.0016 mm²/s in water (were you expecting me or other readers to be confused or impressed on this point?). Which, when compared to biological absorption processes, is insignificant. Or perhaps I should instead focus on the fact that your whole post is built on a logical fallacy (Ignoratio elenchi) that uses other logical fallacies within it (half-truths, bifurcation, proof by example, etc).
I'm guessing the next anonymous post in reaction to this one will be a Chewbacca defense. Bets, anyone?
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"We kicked out the British and formed this country because King George III (a special interest) was taxing Americans (legislating more profit) to fund an unpopular war which did not benefit Americans in any way (negative impact). Current politicians would do well to remember this."
Anthropogenic, adjective: Caused or produced by humans.
Also, the chart (and caption) you're referring to is specifically related to the TOPEX/POSEIDON data, not the study as a whole and it doesn't reflect the other measurements or models. I can totally understand why it would be confusing because the report isn't written (or laid out) very well. It isn't the worst writing in a (real) scientific report I've read, but it is up there.
I figure that due to the controversy surrounding all IPCC reports that they went the extra mile in explanatory paragraphs and references in parentheses (which, if used far too often or with far too much text within, can make for a real headache) instead (especially when used too often) of your typical footnotes (which are much more suitable for jillions of references) =).
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"It is often easier to invent a use for something than it is to neglect its purchase. The trouble is coming up with an invention that can pass muster with your spouse."
Cato was /is largely right but possibly for the wrong reasons
YOU might consider reading this by Scott Atran ( there was a nice write up in the NYT about his thesis and the thesis of others like him a few weeks ago.
In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition Series) (Paperback)
by Scott Atran (Author) "Explaining religion is a serious problem for any evolutionary account of human thought and society..." 24.95 at amazon
The basic premise being that we as a specie have ( for lack of a better word) a God instinct that is evolutionarily determined ( quite possibly as a spandrel/ side effect from other more useful evolutionarily evolved behaviours).
So in the new age melting pot where traditional judeo christian religions/ belief systems are passe, there is an unconscious need for them to be replaced by new and more fashionable ones- gaaia/ " global warming" and various types of environmental causes form a convenient substitute for Jesus.
Ultimately you replace one for of genetically/ evolutionarily determined irratiinal thought process - GOD by another one - Gaaia. Nonethless the extreme cognitive dissonance involved form the commonality between Jesus and the Global Warming religion.
BTW from your pronouncements you sound like a true believer!
You might try reading what people say before posting. The one thing I'm not is anonymous.
Average yearly volcanic CO2 emissions during dormant volcanic periods are not the same as those during really active volcanic periods. They are different. And orders of magnitude make a difference.
You might consider just how much CO2 all the volcanos on Earth emit during a really active volcanic period lasting hundreds to thousands of years. And how many of those there have been in the past million years.
Or you might not.
The appropriate way to claim a numerical fact as false is to actually provide, you know, disputing claims. Such as alternative sources.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
That's snarky credential games. This is a law board, not a science board. Wikipedia is a fine source for this kind of discussion, in particular as a convenient location to find obscure but almost universally accepted facts. I linked to it myself above to explain what the prehistoric Toba eruption was. The alternative is Google.
Credulous acceptance of Wikipedia statistics for scientific computation purposes, as opposed to quick &dirty estimates, can be criticized, but not for the purpose Riskable used it for.
Tom wrote, "Average yearly volcanic CO2 emissions during dormant volcanic periods are not the same as those during really active volcanic periods. They are different. And orders of magnitude make a difference.
You might consider just how much CO2 all the volcanos on Earth emit during a really active volcanic period lasting hundreds to thousands of years. And how many of those there have been in the past million years."
You know what? You're right! A couple of billion years ago, when CO2 levels were astronomical and mere bacteria was living on earth I'm guessing it was one hell of a climate! Of course, that has little to do with what we're talking about.
The fact still remains: In the past 150 (10,000?) years there hasn't been significant enough volcanic activity to compare with anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. I've referenced several major eruptions before in other similar threads. Even if we had ten Mount St. Helens volcanic eruptions this year it still wouldn't amount to much CO2 (compared with human emissions via fossil fuels).
Interesting fact: Each year humans burn one gallon of gasoline for every 6.1 square meters of earth's land surface. Only an armageddon-style supervolcano can match that and even then I'd be skeptical.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"POTUS: Politician Obfuscating Truth and Undermining Science"
You do not need criticism to show the value of your reasoning.
Could you spell it out anyway, for the dullards amongst us who aren't quite clear on what relevance volcanic eruptions millions of years ago have to the question of anthropogenic climate change in the 20th-21st centuries?
Your straw man games are showing.
Lev,
Notice what I did to Riskable without attacking his sources, but by instead setting him up to display his mathematical prowess. He walked right into it AFTER I said, "[O]rders of magnitude make a difference."
If anyone should be setting guide lines for how long chemicals must remain in the atmosphere before they are declared a pollutant, it should be congress or a designated agency that should determine that.
I think it is often wise to ask "How would this affect dihydrogen monoxide production." If it regulates it, you have a serious problem. Since its fairly safe to say congress was not planning on regulating water.
Vic, you and Cato aren't even close to being right, for the right or wrong reasons.
The claim that belief in global warming is a religion is ridiculous. Even a cursory look will tell you this. Religions came about to help people to make sense of the world and to answer questions that were/are unanswerable. Why are we here? Why do we do what we do? Where do we go after we die? How should I live my life? Global doesn't answer or attempt to answer a single one of those. I will however grant you the fact that belief in gaia and most of that new age crap is sorta like a religion. But your attempts to link global warming with those just shows how little you understand either.
Global is a scientific theory. You may not agree with it, and you certainly don't have to, but it is not a religion. It is as much a religion as belief in evolution (bad example, christians call that a religion too), belief in gravity, belief that i'm surrounded by an atmosphere composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen, or belief that heat flows from a hot skillet to my hand causing me to feel pain.
It is true that some global warming opponents believe in it with the same veracity as people tend to believe in jesus or whatever god they choose. The same can be said for global warming proponents (e.g. anyone who claims that global warming is a religion). Does the fact that I strongly believe I'm a male mean that its a religious belief?
Your assertion would be hilarious if you didn't think it was true, but its sad that you do.
Another reason to despise judges.
Robert Tracinski says this of the ruling:
Tom,
You're still not answering my questions.
The Court's ruling says nothing of the sort. The opinion says that the EPA must regulate any motor vehicle emissions "which in [the EPA Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). Surely the fact that water vapor remains in the atmosphere for a short period of time would be relevant to the EPA's "judgment" about whether that substance "may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." If, however, the EPA were to determine that, notwithstanding the fact that water vapor is quickly removed from the atmosphere, it nevertheless poses a threat to health or welfare (which I think it reasonably could), then, yes, this opinion would suggest that the EPA should regulate its emission from motor vehicles. What, exactly, is the problem with the EPA regulating emissions that are harmful?
Tom,
Please refer to my 7:49 PM comment. If you're going to accuse anyone of making straw man arguments, how about the abundance of critics who conveniently overlook the fact that the Clean Air Act provision in question limits the EPA's regulatory obligations to "new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines"? Not barbecues, not power plants, not anything else.
Scott Atran is a brilliant anthropologist and has lots of very logical hypothesis regarding the nature of religion. It is important, however, to make a distinction between the idea of an inherent human "need to believe" and the evolutionary explanation for religion that Scott Atran suggests. They're not the same thing.
Let me point you to a page where, in his own words, he debates religion with other scientists and explains his ideas: link
Here's some relevant excerpts...
A pertinent example of how irrational thinking can be useful (in regards to evolution of a species):
So acting irrationally is useful for mating purposes =). I think we can all agree that this humorous aspect of the human condition is true. There's another aspect of this that *I* posit allowed for the propagation of religion... If you didn't put up with your spouse's (or society's) occasional irrationality--tolerating nonsense from time to time--do you think you would remain married or get along with your peers? There may be an innate feature to the human brain that encourages us to tolerate or ignore beliefs or actions that present either no impact or a negative impact if they are challenged.
Atran also suggests that religion may have arisen precisely because it is counterintuitive:
So you can see that what Cato was referring to is actually not the same thing. More importantly, it isn't a "God instinct" as you suggest but rather a collection of instincts for avoiding conflict, tolerating irrationality, rapid learning/unquestioning faith from parents/elders in childhood (indoctrination... this is more Dawkin's idea than Atron), and an innate ability to put irrationality to good (and bad) use.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Religion is a path that only leads away from truth."
This is utter BS and completely misrepresents the issue (not only that, but it is both a straw man logical fallacy and an ad logicam fallacy). Firstly, why is this a straw man argument and an ad logicam fallacy? It posits that because (A) carbon dioxide is a pollutant that causes global warming and (B) carbon dioxide is the byproduct of burning things like fuel and because of A and B thus; (C) the only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to reduce energy usage which would (D) hurt the economy.
Just because A and B are true doesn't mean that C or D are. In fact, there isn't even any evidence to suggest that C would cause D. Then there's the fact that C is a made-up and incorrect conclusion from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. This is also a straw man argument because Tracinski sets up an imaginary world where there are "no practical alternatives" to fossil fuels.
Firstly, the EPA's CCA mandate only refers to regulating car emissions. Anyone who thinks we're completely limited to fossil fuels for transportation is either delusional or doesn't have any hope whatsoever for the future of mankind (considering that the amount of crude oil in the ground is a finite resource). Also, anyone who thinks that we can't improve fuel economy standards (to limit CO2 emissions) without hurting the economy needs to remember that improvements in efficiency rarely have a negative impact on any economy.
Then there's the whole idea that any carbon dioxide emission at all contributes to global warming. This is not the case. When you exhale you emit carbon dioxide but you're not contributing to global warming. Why? It is because the CO2 you emit was already part of the carbon cycle. It is only when we pump or mine fossil fuels out of the ground and inject them into the atmosphere do we add carbon to the carbon cycle (and thus; negatively impacting the climate).
Surely, regulating CO2 for the purposes of mitigating global warming isn't as simple as limiting SOx emissions (which is a classic pollutant that doesn't normally exist in the environment outside of volcanoes). It is, however, very manageable and it most certainly won't be catastrophic on the economy for car manufacturers to be forced to improve fuel efficiency while at the same time we (as a greater government concern) try to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn.
Then there's the whole idea that we can't replace our current fossil fuel power plants completely with renewables. This may have been true at some point; before solar, hydroelectric, wave, wind, and geothermal energy sources were viable. It isn't true anymore. Heck, modern wind turbines alone could power the entire U.S. all by themselves (installed off the coasts). That doesn't even include decentralized solar, wind, or microhydro power which are gaining in popularity (especially microhydro: For about $8000, if you live near a stream you can install a mini-turbine that can power four homes--without disturbing the stream!).
I've heard many people state that renewable energy plants are not economically viable. If that were true, the market for alternative energy wouldn't be booming right now. Also consider that the cost of fossil fuels rises over time (or may even crash if you agree with the idea of peak oil) whereas the cost of wind, the sun, and water-based energy sources remains constant and are infinitely replenished.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Views from a great distance always miss details."
There is no need to be snarky or rude. I asked a couple of completely honest questions concerning unsupported assertions other posters had made. To repeat:
1) Why would human beings be less tolerant of CO2 in the atmosphere than other mammals? To me that smacks of biological mysticism: in terms of our purely physiological and biochemical processes we humans are no different from the rest of the order mammalia.
2) How is it that trees are "poisoned" by CO2 when in fact they (like all green plants) require it for photosynthesis and in fact CO2 levels have fallen so low since the end of the Cretaceous era that trees and related "old" plants are barely able to carry on photosynthesis.
But fuel economy standards make us more efficient at using one resource (fuel), at the expense of others. I could become much more fuel efficient by jogging the 25 miles to work every day, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for the economy. Increased fuel economy standards mean more resources are devoted to engineering and fewer to safety, noise reduction, etc.
Aleks,
I think the commenter meant the studies are "poisoned" (i.e., tainted) by increased CO2 levels, not the trees.
If you had bothered to check Wikipedia's entry on CO2, you'd have seen that higher concentrations affect infants far more than adults. You might have then asked yourself why, and realized that it is a question of the ratio of brain mass to total body mass. That is higher in human infants than in any other species at any time in their lifespans.
You might then have realized that this is also why adult humans are more vulnerable to higher CO2 concentrations than other mammals - higher brain to body mass ratios.
And you might also have realized from the Wikipedia entry about human infants being more susceptible to higher CO2 concentrations that, when considering species viability over extended periods, abrupt increases in infant mortality for a period of a generation or more will cause a noticeable population crash and, over several generations, an observable bottleneck in genetic diversity.
Which was described in the Toba population crash article I linked to - Toba reduced homo sapiens to under 10,000 breeding pairs, perhaps only a thousand. And that was from a single huge volcano, though there it was climate change (abrupt global cooling) rather than an abrupt CO2 increase which crashed homo sapiens.
There is a difference, though, between supervolcanos and prolonged periods of significantly increased volcanic activity, over large areas, involving less dramatic single events. It is the prolonged periods of high volcanic activity over large areas which result in incredible CO2 emissions for prolonged periods that, absent oceanic absorption from the partial pressure differentials described by the anonymous commentator, would cause atomspheric CO2 concentrations to soar to levels so affecting the biosphere globally as to produce noticeable effects in the paleontological and genetic records.
I did give you a clue - I can't resist pun opportunities.
Let us enumerate what you just said, just to be clear:
(A) Increased fuel economy standards makes us more efficient at using fuel. (correct)
(B) If you jog to work you can save fuel. (correct)
(C) Saving fuel by jogging to work is bad for the economy. (what?!?)
(D) The only way to increase fuel economy is to make vehicles less safe and more noisy. (WHAT?!?)
Let me first address C: You are suggesting here that by not spending money on fuel you're hurting the economy. Ahh, I was blind but now I see... It is all because the money you save is completely removed from the economy--disappearing into the black hole that is your wallet. Here's a wild idea for you: Perhaps the money you save on fuel will simply be spent on something else; having no impact on the economy other than a bit more diversification.
Now lets talk about D: I think this is the most ridiculous assertion in this thread so far. Even worse than the "global warming is religion" BS.
Firstly, what evidence do you have that making a car more fuel efficient makes it less safe? Care to share some crash test rating data? Last I checked the efficiency of a car's engine and its drag coefficient had absolutely no effect whatsoever on a car's safety. Or perhaps you are referring to a certain kind of efficiency modification that can make a car less safe? Please enlighten us!
Secondly, you're really hurting your own argument with the idea that greater fuel efficiency means more noise. Consider for a moment that the blind and visually impaired are having trouble knowing when to cross the street because hybrid cars don't make enough noise. Now consider that cars driven by electric motors (powered by batteries, generators, fuel cells, or whatever) make almost no noise at all.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth." -Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
Here, I'll put it in a way you can understand: If you had bothered to check Wikipedia's entry on the Chewbacca Defense you might then have realized that it is not an appropriate way to put forth an argument.
Though, I must admit that I laughed when I read, "You might then have realized that this is also why adult humans are more vulnerable to higher CO2 concentrations than other mammals - higher brain to body mass ratios." because it reminded me of a relevant quote by John Updike:
It couldn't be more pertinent to the point at which your reducto ad absurdum argument has reached.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"A damn is a gift everyone can afford."
I suggest reading this as a start: Efficiency.
Health benefits of jogging to work (saves money on health care--lowers chances of obesity, heart disease, cancer, etc), the negative economic impact of his vehicle's contribution to global warming, his vehicle's negative impact on everyone else's efficiency in traffic, and the negative economic impact of his vehicle on parking spaces (if we had less cars that needed parking we could devote more real estate to more economically efficient uses).
There are probably many, many more positives and negatives but I'd be very surprised if it all didn't work out in favor of jogging being better for the economy than driving. The costs associated with the health factor alone can be enormous (how much does a lifetime's worth of heart and cholesterol medication cost?).
There's other factors and permutations of this idea that can change around the whole equation. How about using public transportation? Riding a bike? Telecommuting? Would these methods of reducing fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions have a negative economic impact? I highly doubt it.
Let us also consider for a moment the fact that the U.S. imports most of its oil from foreign countries. This increases our trade deficit which has a negative impact on the economy. Wouldn't it be more economically efficient to spend that money on energy sources that exist within the U.S.? For example, biofuels and renewables (wind, solar, hyrdo, etc).
No matter which way you spin it, burning oil has a long-term negative impact on the economy. Not just from a global warming perspective. You can even add in terrorism, war, risks associated with supply problems (peak oil), etc.
Don't get me wrong... The U.S. economy benefited greatly from the availability of cheap oil and that helped us get where we are today. My argument is that circumstances have changed considerably and we can't just bury our heads in the sand and continue burning fossil fuels. It isn't good for the environment and it isn't good for the economy.
Oil isn't cheap anymore.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Fighting for freedom is an admirable cause. Fighting for the freedom to oppress is not."
Based on the complexity of the issue, there's no way that you (or I) could determine with reasonable certainty whether, to what extent, and under what conditions "burning oil has a long-term negative impact on the economy." Resolving such complex issues is best left to the emergent order of the market economy, as discussed much more intelligently here.
BS. CO2 emissions are a classic externality. A market economy will not regulate them because there's no cost involved in spewing out the emissions and no market disincentive for this kind of pollution. The cost never falls on the polluter -- only on the rest of us. Markets are the true religion of the right; but they are often idols with clay feet.
The problem with adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere isn't about reaching some sort of problematic high point in global average temperatures. It is about the negative impact of such a rapid change in temperatures. As I said previously, it is about the rate at which the environment can adapt to such a change and not the change in itself (e.g. fishing only becomes a problem when you remove fish faster than the rate at which they can replenish themselves).
If you believe that we don't know if global warming will have a negative impact on the economy, why bother at all doing anything at all about it? There's two flaws in this argument:
1) That the economy is more important than the potential human suffering caused by global warming.
2) That the requisite changes to prevent global warming will have a negative impact on the economy.
Furthermore your belief that, "Resolving such complex issues is best left to the emergent order of the market economy" is severely flawed. A free market is only good at solving the problems of supply and demand. Since the issue of global warming has nothing to do with supply and demand, leaving it "up to the market" won't solve the problem.
Global warming is like the national deficit. The sooner we fix the problem the less of a problem we'll have to deal with in the future. It only gets worse the longer we delay.
I'd also like to point out that the "free market" that laissez-faire capitalism is built upon has a long history of hunting species to extinction, permanently destroying ecosystems, and emitting so much pollution in places that we needed to create the Superfund to clean up the mess. Here's some examples:
* The Passenger Pigeon
* The collapse of the entire cod fishing industry off of the Grand Banks
* The toxic dumping at the Love Canal which lead to the creation of the Superfund
...and you can go on and on. The simple truth is that the free market cannot be relied upon to regulate itself in a manner that is appropriate for sustainable environmental stewardship. There is simply too much money to be made (by a small number of people) by not doing the right thing. The greater negative impact of problems created by the free market are often not felt by those creating the problems. Not only that, but the problems may not arise until long after the money has been made.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"Believing that details are unimportant is the mantra of a problem gambler."
If I didn't make it clear in my previous post: The market doesn't care what the effects are of any given fuel. It only cares how much each fuel costs and how readily available it is. The perfect example of this is coal power plants prior to the Clean Air Act...
SO2 scrubbers cost money and they don't provide any economic or efficiency benefit to the utility. Even though it was well-known that SO2 emissions cause acid rain and respiratory illnesses the coal burning power plant industry lobbied against the Clean Air Act and had completely no interest in doing anything about the problem.
I don't think anyone today would argue that regulating and restricting SO2 emissions was a bad idea or even bad for the economy. Even though it resulted in a small increase in energy costs, the overall effect on the economy was positive. More importantly, the overall effect it had on the nation's health was extremely positive.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"To change a person you can show them the light. To change a business it must feel the heat. Nothing motivates a company like the threat of burning money."
Riskable, if you assume I'm productive at work, raising my kids, etc., yes jogging to work would eat into this time and be bad for the economy, because it would lose some of my production.
I think that there is some level of CO2 emmission that is economically efficient. I think it's probably above zero.
As for your comment:
Yes they do provide utility. The free-market argument for regulation is that the utility not captured by the person who pays the price (i.e., that there's a positive externality).
Also, it seems like you're conflating "business" and "the market." I would argue most established businesses are decided opposed to free-market policies. Finally, the tenor of this conversation it what makes me so leery of the AGW issue. I don't know enough about the science, but I'm ready to believe the experts. However, economically illiterate climate experts (or celebrities/politicians) start making economic pronouncements, and that's what scares me. I tend to want to root for the global warming skeptics, just because I fear the cure for global warming more than the disease.
If you are trying to compare those who believe global warming is dangerous to the religious, whom are you belittling?
More interesting, I don't see why the EPA could not control methane emission from cattle by mandating feeding regimes (that works btw)
(That leads to an interesting question. SCotUS makes a ruling. The opinion cites Foo v Bar, and notes that the sheriff broke open the car trunk. In fact the finding in Foo v Bar was the opposite of what was claimed, and the truck popped open when the car slipped off the tow bar and hit the ground. If SCotUS clearly and palpably erred, can SCotUS reverse itself?)
Consider for a moment that Brazil's transportation sector is run entirely off of biofuels. That means, from a fuel-burning perspective, that their CO2 emissions are zero. Is there any reason why we couldn't do the same in the U.S.? Is there any reason why we can't diversify our fuel sources in transportation (electric, hydrogen, alcohol, etc)? Why must it be an "all fossil fuels or it is bad for the economy" argument? That is essentially what you're arguing and it doesn't make any sense.
Note that Brazil also has coal-burning power plants that were utilized in the construction of said cars and the processing of said fuels. So the big picture net emissions is well above zero but that is a different problem with different solutions.
Consider for a moment that the cost of fossil fuels will eventually rise above the cost of renewables (it is inevitable--fossil fuels are a fixed and finite resource). A laissez-faire capitalist would say, "that is the market solving the problem!" But it really isn't because we have no way of knowing when that will happen and we know that in the mean time we're wreaking havoc on the environment. We also know that the long-term impact of burning fossil fuels effects more than just the economics of the U.S. It effects the entire planet.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9"
Your 10:45am comment demonstrates the oversimplification that I and others have criticized above. On one hand, you assume (i) an enormous loss or harm (i.e., "wreaking havoc on the environment") and (ii) a probability of 100% (i.e., "we know" that the loss is taking place). On the other hand, you seem to be assuming away the possible unintended consequences of a government-pushed switch to biofuels. (E.g., what effects will an increased dedication of farmland to biofuel crops have on food prices? What are the opportunity costs associated with pushing the adoption of more-expensive energy inputs?)
Given your premises, it's easy to conclude that government must interfere in the market now to make use of fossil fuels more expensive and make use of biofuels less expensive.
But your leap from "I am confident that natural scientists have determined that x is happening" to "this is what must be done" ignores the considerations that economists are trained to take into account. Even if you are right about the physical causes and environmental effects of global warming, the questions whether to do anything at present, and if so, what to do, are not ones to which the answers follow from climate science. Climate science can give rise to the issue ("x is happening"), but the costs and benefits of different ways of responding to x (including, among other things, incentives and distortions) are matters that economists should speak to.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
Before 1800, our transportation system didn't rely on fossil fuels. I'd hardly call it more efficient.
You said, "Why must it be an "all fossil fuels or it is bad for the economy" argument? That is essentially what you're arguing and it doesn't make any sense. "
That is not what I argued. I said that I think there is a non-zero level of CO2 emissions that is efficient, even considering the costs of global warming.
Finally, I'd like to echo what jp2 said. The ease with which you seem to get from point A (AGW is proven and has deleterious effects) to B (massive, government-driven changes are needed to ameliorate said effects) is why I'm leery of you and many in the Inconvenient Truth camp. Maybe you've thought through every policy, contemplated the side-effects, and considered that unsavory people may take the controls of the anti-warming machine you want to create, etc., etc., etc.
I just haven't seen it on this thread.
Not true:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/
Natural CO2 Sources account for 80% of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere according to NASA. That accounts for .096 deg F.
Man made CO2 if it is responsible for the remainder would account for .024 deg. F. The USA is responsible for 25% of the man made additions of CO2 which would make the USA contribution to global warming .006 deg F. i.e. well into the noise level.
Even if you discount solar effects man would be responsibele for a .15 deg F rise and the USA responsible for .04 deg F of the man made rise. Still well into the noise level.
See CO2?