The Global Warming Thread

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:01 pm

Well there's one citation struck from conservative think tanks everywhere.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:34 pm

Enough wrote:Well there's one citation struck from conservative think tanks everywhere.

The article also states that he was funded with $150k of the Koch brothers money.

I don't think he'll get any funding from them anymore.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:04 pm

So how we doin'?

WASHINGTON - The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the US Department of Energy calculated, calling the development a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

...

Extra pollution in China and the United States accounts for more than half the increase in emissions, Marland said.

...

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide, and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

The world is slowly using more coal and less natural gas when it should be doing just the opposite because of climate change, Marland said.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:33 pm

The news just keeps getting worse.

WASHINGTON - Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the UN weather agency yesterday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.

With world leaders set to meet next week in South Africa to tackle the issue of climate change, several scientists said their projections show it is unlikely the world can hold warming to the target set by leaders two years ago in Copenhagen.

“The growth rate is increasing every decade,’’ said Jim Butler, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Global Monitoring Division. “That’s kind of scary.’’

I'm sure that Washington will mobilize in a bipartisan fashion to address it any day now.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:43 pm

Oh yeah, we're screwed.

WASHINGTON - Massive amounts of greenhouse gases trapped below thawing permafrost will likely seep into the air over the next several decades, accelerating and amplifying global warming, scientists warn.

Those heat-trapping gases under the frozen Arctic ground may be a bigger factor in global warming than the cutting down of forests and a scenario for which climate scientists had not completely accounted, according to a group of permafrost specialists. The gases will not contribute as much as pollution from power plants, cars, trucks, and planes, though.

The scientists predict that over the next three decades a total of about 45 billion metric tons of carbon from methane and carbon dioxide will seep into the atmosphere when permafrost thaws during summers. That is about the same amount of heat-trapping gas the world spews during five years of burning coal, gas, and other fossil fuels

The picture is even more alarming for the end of the century. The scientists calculate that about than 300 billion metric tons of carbon will belch from the thawing Earth from now until 2100.

Adding in that gas means that warming would happen “20 to 30 percent faster than from fossil fuel emissions alone,’’ said Edward Schuur of the University of Florida. “You are significantly speeding things up by releasing this carbon.’’

This will be less alarming if we change the name to "tempafrost".

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:57 am

Curious. When we pump up oil, how much CO2 do we pump into the ground? I wonder if that displacement counts for anything.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:40 pm

LordMortis wrote:Curious. When we pump up oil, how much CO2 do we pump into the ground? I wonder if that displacement counts for anything.

Carbon sequestration and yep it does. This ought to get you started.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:25 pm

A hole in the ground...

Over the course of two months, scientists from the University of Alabama had injected 278 tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth. The goal was to keep it there forever, locked in geologic formations. The beer cooler was a key part of that plan. Beneath it sat the delicate electronic components of the monitoring system the scientists were using to make sure none of the captured carbon dioxide found its way out of the mountain. Beer coolers, it turns out, make great low-cost heat protection.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:40 am

Kraken wrote:Oh yeah, we're screwed.

I actually read about this several years ago. It seems at some point, sooner than later I am afraid, that we will hit the tipping point for rapid massive climate change.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:03 am

Grifman wrote:
Kraken wrote:Oh yeah, we're screwed.
I actually read about this several years ago. It seems at some point, sooner than later I am afraid, that we will hit the tipping point for rapid massive climate change.

I think we have already passed Peak Climate. The focus of the conversation should move from containment to amelioration. Inasmuch as we even have conversations in this country anymore.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:15 pm

Where can we get a topographical map of the new coastline? I want to buy the property next to LexCorp.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:26 am

Zarathud wrote:Where can we get a topographical map of the new coastline? I want to buy the property next to LexCorp.

I think msd already scooped it all up.

GaltagreertuS · Post by **GaltagreertuS** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:35 am

i have a problem sending pm is it my post count?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:02 am

GaltagreertuS wrote:i have a problem sending pm is it my post count?

If you are a human, see here.

If you are not a human, you owe me 30 seconds of lifespan.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:35 pm

Here's one from Cliff Mass to add to your resources
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/02/w ... lobal.html" target="_blank

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:49 pm

Too bad we can't do a thread merge between this subject and the more recently updated The warming of planet Earth thread.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 pm

Enough wrote:Too bad we can't do a thread merge between this subject and the more recently updated The warming of planet Earth thread.

The idea was to keep the political arguments in that thread and restrict this one to news and research...but that distinction fades as time goes on.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:02 pm

Kraken wrote:
Enough wrote:Too bad we can't do a thread merge between this subject and the more recently updated The warming of planet Earth thread.
The idea was to keep the political arguments in that thread and restrict this one to news and research...but that distinction fades as time goes on.

Ahh, I am guilty for ruining the plan as I've been dumping interesting links in the other thread as well.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:15 pm

Enough wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Enough wrote:Too bad we can't do a thread merge between this subject and the more recently updated The warming of planet Earth thread.
The idea was to keep the political arguments in that thread and restrict this one to news and research...but that distinction fades as time goes on.
Ahh, I am guilty for ruining the plan as I've been dumping interesting links in the other thread as well.

(shrug) Can't win an argument without interesting links, can we now?

But this is your thread when you want to post news and documentation devoid of overt opinion. Theoretically, anyway.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:01 am

The Quinnites will love this

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:28 am

Defiant wrote:The Quinnites will love this

I read something similiar the same thing about the middle east. It went from being the cradle of civilization to a desert.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:16 pm

My intention to update this thread with routine news reports of evidence for climate change sort of fell by the wayside due to the preponderance of such stories. Hardly a day goes by without another small detail falling into place.

I thought this one was particularly noteworthy, though, as a demonstration of unforeseen consequences.

The condensed version: Increased rainfall over New England for the past 10 years has led to more fresh water flowing into the Gulf of Maine, which silts up the gulf and suppresses the influx of cold ocean water, leading to a decrease in the bacteria that form the basis for the food chain, and inevitably to the decline of commercial species. That last effect hasn't actually happened yet, but “You can’t drop the primary production of an ecosystem by a factor of five and not have an impact on other parts of the marine food web that depend on it,” Balch said.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:59 pm

Some states are warming faster than others:

New analysis (pdf) of climate data finds that since 1912, the United States has warmed 1.3 degrees. But that warming is concentrated in certain states, some of which have "warmed 60 times faster than the 10 slowest-warming states."

All of that is according to Climate Central, a research and journalism non-profit that seeks to inform the public about climate and energy. The center looked at data from the National Climatic Data Center's U.S. Historical Climatology Network.

The scientists found that Arizona was the fastest warming state and that much of the warming was concentrated in Southwest and upper Midwest. Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, New Mexico, Utah, Maine, Texas and Massachusetts round out the top 10.

Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia didn't warm at all during the last century.

jimbo · Post by **jimbo** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:10 am

miltonite wrote:I see all the links to what global warming is causing, can someone please point out a credible (preferably peer reviewed article) that states that CO2 is the direct cause of global warming?

here is one http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... te1553.pdf

Here is a comment posted on the Atlantic Wire describing the paper (as seen here)

More confirmation that human activity caused ocean warming. We've done it again, humanity. Yetanother study has found that people must have had something to do with the warmer ocean temperatures. "We have taken a closer look at factors that influence these results," explains researcher Peter Gleckler. "The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities," he continues. This time, science relied on a bunch of models and no matter what other factors they plugged in, human activity got the blame. What we are trying to do is determine if the observed warming pattern can be explained by natural variability alone," Gleckler said. "Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role." [DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:51 pm

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Sounds like a reasonable guy. I love the part about the "Green Religion". Go ahead and try to separate that from the state.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:57 pm

Rip wrote:
global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.

Does not compute with "apocalyptic predictions".

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:04 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:
global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.
Does not compute with "apocalyptic predictions".

The apocalyptic predictions are because man upsets the self regulating complex system.

http://www.green-agenda.com/gaians.html

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:25 am

Rip wrote:
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

So, we don't know what the climate is doing and thus can't predict with any certainty what the climate is doing, but at the same time he can say with certainty that we're not headed towards a "doomsday"? Seems like he's contradicting himself there.

As for the other points (from your quotes, didn't read the article), none of them argued against global warming in the broad sense. There's a consensus that global warming is anthropogenic, but that doesn't mean that current scientists are constantly revising their predictions as they obtain more data. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see the massive number of peer-reviewed papers that are constantly published. And from my (admittedly little) knowledge about fracking, the concern isn't as much about the use of gas as a power source as it is the concern that the process of fracking itself is a danger through surface and ground water contamination.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:50 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
Rip wrote:
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

So, we don't know what the climate is doing and thus can't predict with any certainty what the climate is doing, but at the same time he can say with certainty that we're not headed towards a "doomsday"? Seems like he's contradicting himself there.

As for the other points (from your quotes, didn't read the article), none of them argued against global warming in the broad sense. There's a consensus that global warming is anthropogenic, but that doesn't mean that current scientists are constantly revising their predictions as they obtain more data. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see the massive number of peer-reviewed papers that are constantly published. And from my (admittedly little) knowledge about fracking, the concern isn't as much about the use of gas as a power source as it is the concern that the process of fracking itself is a danger through surface and ground water contamination.

Yet given how much fracking is being used now and how few incidents of groundwater contamination from have been identified it would seem the concern is unfounded. The reality of how many lives it can save and numerous other problems it can with all certainty you would think it would at least get a pass absent any specific verifiable risk.

I know a lot of people fracking right now and if there had many ANY contamination to groundwater from it you can bet there would be a bunch of lawsuits filed. It would seem a major portion the green religion would dislike it no matter what simply because it involves making money from selling resources. Something they NEVER like.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:24 am

Rip wrote:Sounds like a reasonable guy.

Does he?

James Lovelock wrote:By 2100, the Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million.

I guess it's good that he's reversed course on his own alarmist predictions, but no one else in the "green religion" was predicting that 93% of the human species would be dead by 2100.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:28 am

Rip wrote:Yet given how much fracking is being used now and how few incidents of groundwater contamination from have been identified it would seem the concern is unfounded.

Not "identified", "publicized".

The gas companies are very efficient at settling up with the locals (whose water is now flammable). If the process is totally safe and harmless, then remove their exemption from the Clean Water Act, and make them provide a list of what it is they are pumping into the ground. I mean, I assume that you're smart enough to figure out why the gas companies are fighting against being subjected to the Clean Water Act with everything they have, right?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:54 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Rip wrote:Sounds like a reasonable guy.
Does he?

James Lovelock wrote:By 2100, the Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million.
I guess it's good that he's reversed course on his own alarmist predictions, but no one else in the "green religion" was predicting that 93% of the human species would be dead by 2100.

Does he say that now? I think that is the kind of alarmist talk he is now distancing himself from. I didn't see him say that in the article I quoted.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:02 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Rip wrote:Yet given how much fracking is being used now and how few incidents of groundwater contamination from have been identified it would seem the concern is unfounded.
Not "identified", "publicized".

The gas companies are very efficient at settling up with the locals (whose water is now flammable). If the process is totally safe and harmless, then remove their exemption from the Clean Water Act, and make them provide a list of what it is they are pumping into the ground. I mean, I assume that you're smart enough to figure out why the gas companies are fighting against being subjected to the Clean Water Act with everything they have, right?

That is bullshit. The water wasn't flammable it had "trace" amounts of methane. By all means please demonstrate some flammable water to me.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:08 pm

Rip wrote:
That is bullshit. The water wasn't flammable it had "trace" amounts of methane. By all means please demonstrate some flammable water to me.

that took approximately two seconds to find

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:31 pm

Exodor wrote:
Rip wrote:
That is bullshit. The water wasn't flammable it had "trace" amounts of methane. By all means please demonstrate some flammable water to me.

that took approximately two seconds to find

Didn't see water burning. That was a gas. Naturally occurring gas from water wells is well documented. I am sure however it is possible to get some contamination just like it is possible to have a spill when producing oil. No evidence that the risk is anything but minute. It is without question much less damaging than the alternative.

We are being like a fat kid living on eating Ice Cream and refusing to eat a loaded baked potato because it was fattening. A step in the right direction is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't your destination.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:00 pm

Rip wrote:Does he say that now? I think that is the kind of alarmist talk he is now distancing himself from. I didn't see him say that in the article I quoted.

No, he doesn't say that now. Yes, that is the kind of alarmist talk he is distancing himself from. The point is - he didn't know what he was talking about when he was saying X, and he doesn't really know what he is talking about now when he is saying !X. Well, the point is really that you only find him "reasonable" because he's saying !X, which is what you want to hear.

Rip wrote:That is bullshit. The water wasn't flammable it had "trace" amounts of methane.

What the fuck is this then?

Rip wrote:We are being like a fat kid living on eating Ice Cream and refusing to eat a loaded baked potato because it was fattening.

Uh...no. We are being like the guy that sees people lighting their water on fire from the faucet, and saying "we should stop doing things that result in people's water lighting on fire".

Again - if there is no risk, take away their exemption from the Clean Water Act.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:17 am

Methane in has gotten into well supplies long before fracking was around. Here's an article from 1982.

The reason oil companies want to be exempted is because of the way the law is written. It's written such that any underground fluid injection is subject to the Act. The oil companies feel (and mostly rightly so) that fracking occurs so far beneath the water table, that there's no reason for it to apply. Certainly any water table or disposal needs regulated (it likely is to some degree already, it just doesn't fall into the Clean Water Act specifically), but the CWA doesn't allow for any nuance.

I say mostly because there needs to be some independent (on both sides) research done. I'm not convinced it's completely safe, but I'm much less convinced it's anywhere near the threat it's being made out to be.

Here's the EPA's response

tl:dr version: It's the dose, not the poison

API has estimated that the average volume of produced
water increased from 6 barrels of water per barrel of oil
in 1985, to 7.5 barrels of water per barrel of oil in 1995.

In December 1978, EPA proposed hazardous waste management
standards that included reduced requirements for several
types of large volume wastes. Generally, EPA believed
these large volume “special wastes” are lower in toxicity than
other wastes being regulated as hazardous waste under
RCRA. Subsequently, Congress exempted these wastes from
the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations pending a
study and regulatory determination by EPA. In 1988, EPA
issued a regulatory determination stating that control of E&P
wastes under RCRA Subtitle C regulations is not warranted.

In general, the exempt status of an E&P waste depends on how
the material was used or generated as waste, not necessarily
whether the material is hazardous or toxic.

It is important to remember that all E&P wastes require proper
management to ensure protection of human health and the
environment.

A waste that is exempt from RCRA
Subtitle C regulation might be subject to more stringent or
broader state hazardous and non-hazardous waste regulations
and other state and federal program regulations. For
example, oil and gas exploration and production wastes are
subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean
Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

The exemption applies only to those wastes derived
from exempt wastes, not to additional wastes generated
by the treatment or reclamation of exempt wastes. For
example, if a treatment facility uses an acid in the treatment
of an exempt waste, any waste derived from the
exempt waste being treated is also exempt but the
spent acid is not.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:16 am

Not sure how recent this is, at least 2011 as some quotes come from then, but this is a decent little article showing both sides of the case for fracking. Slide 4 is the one concerning the possibilities of the chemicals getting into the water while slide 8 talks about the burning water. Summary of slide 8 is they have to screw up the cementing of the bore holes for it to happen, and the GasLand video blaming the gas drilling is BS (the guy's water well went through a natural pocket of methane).

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:16 am

ChiTrib

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed rules governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, clearing a path for sweeping regulations affecting vehicles, coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities.

Handing a setback to industry and a victory to the Obama administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and the decision to set limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were "neither arbitrary nor capricious."

The ruling, which addresses four separate lawsuits, upholds the underpinnings of the Obama administration's push to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and is a rebuke to a major push by heavy industries including electric utilities, coal miners and states like Texas to block the EPA's path.

In the 82-page ruling, the three-judge panel also found that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is "unambiguously correct."

The court also said it lacked jurisdiction to review the timing and scope of greenhouse gas rules that affect stationary sources like new coal-burning power plants and other large industrial sources.
...
The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA in 2009 issued an "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gases "reasonably may be anticipated to endanger public health." The agency followed with the "tailpipe rule" in May 2010 setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.

The agency is also preparing to issue first-ever standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants, which are likely to spur utilities to opt for cleaner natural-gas burning plants instead.

The focus on APM's Marketplace this morning was how this would have a severe impact on the viability of long-term powerplant operations using coal.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:41 pm

Our new Global Cooling thread reminded me that I meant to post this story today.
Not all weather woes are tied to climate change (duh)

NEW YORK — Last year brought a record heat wave to Texas, massive floods in Bangkok, and an unusually warm November in England. How much has global warming boosted the chances of events like that?

Quite a lot in Texas and England, but apparently not at all in Bangkok, say new analyses released Tuesday.

Scientists can’t tie any single weather event to climate change, but they can assess how it has altered the odds of such events happening, Tom Peterson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told reporters.

In the Texas case, researchers at Oregon State University and in England noted that the state suffered through record heat last year. It happened during a La Niña weather pattern. Caused by dropping temperatures of the central Pacific Ocean, La Niña generally cools the world but would be expected to make the southern United States warmer than usual.

Global warming has made such a Texas heat wave about 20 times more likely to happen during a La Niña year, researchers found.

Scientists from Oxford University and the British government looked at temperatures in central England. Last November was the second-warmest in that region in more than 300 years. Their analysis concluded that global warming has made such a warm November about 62 times more likely.

A third analysis considered unusually severe river flooding last year in central and southern Thailand. It found no sign that climate change played a role in that event, noting that the amount of rainfall was not very unusual. The scale of the flooding was influenced more by factors like reservoir operation policies, researchers wrote.

(Quoted in its entirety because it's so short)

I'm glad to see climatologists get specific about probabilities. The impossibility of blaming any specific weather event on climate change tends to weaken their case.