Obama Administration Formally Declares Dangers of Carbon Dioxide

Originally posted by jdub297

Equating automobile exhaust with CO2 and GHGs? There is certainly CO2 in exhaust, but it is far from the most dangerous constituent.

Show me ONE study that CO2, alone, causes "long suffering" health problems or "world health implications."

Alone? Have you even read the EPA ruling you are railing against? Do I need to post for third time for you to actually read it? Or are you being intententionally obtuse?

Here let me underline the words you don't seem capable of understanding...Since you seem to be under the impression that the Obama declared increased "CO2 Alone" a health risk.

Action
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases
--carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

www.epa.gov...

So now that we have dispelled the propaganda that this was all about CO2, lets take a moment to reflect upon the idea of CO2 alone is great.

CO2 has increased significantly at a rate that we haven't seen in 10,000 years. Countless ice cores and other measures have been scrutinized. The current increase correlates perfectly with the industrial revolution. Man made Carbon Dioxide has a signature that scientists can read and we can even tell how much Carbon Dioxide in the atomosphere is due to Industry as opposed to natural factors. Carbon Dioxide in the atomosphere has increased roughly 35% since industrialization. Carbon Dioxide has a much longer life span in the atomosphere than any othe GHG.

Carbon dioxide has a very different life cycle compared to the other GHGs, which have well-defined lifetimes. Instead, unlike the other gases, CO2 is not destroyed by chemical, photolytic, or other reaction mechanisms, but rather the carbon in CO2 cycles between different reservoirs in the atmosphere, ocean, land vegetation, soils, and sediments. There are large exchanges between these reservoirs, which are approximately balanced such that the net source or sink is near zero. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions released through the use of fossil fuel combustion and cement production from geologically stored carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) that is hundreds of millions of years old, as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation, perturb the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the distribution of carbon within different reservoirs readjusts. Carbon cycle models indicate that for a pulse of CO2 emissions, given an equilibrium background, 50% of the atmospheric increase will disappear within 30 years, 30% within a few centuries, and the last 20% may remain in the atmosphere for
thousands of years (Denman et al., 2007).

So we are jacking up the CO2 levels and it takes a long time for those levels to normalize...but CO2 is good for plants right? Better crops, warmer temps...whats to worry about?

Well the EPA report...which you obviously haven't read, acknowledges this..

A longer growing season, low levels of warming, and fertilization effects of carbon dioxide may benefit certain crop species and forests, particularly in the Northeast and Alaska. Projected summer rainfall increases in the Pacific islands may augment limited freshwater supplies. Cold-related
mortality is projected to decrease, especially in the Southeast. In the Midwest in particular, heating oil demand and snow-related traffic accidents are expected to decrease.

But here is the downside...

Sustained high summer temperatures, heat waves, and declining air quality are projected in the Northeast3, Southeast4, Southwest5, and Midwest.

Projected climate change would continue to cause loss of sea ice, glacier retreat, permafrost thawing, and coastal erosion in Alaska.

Reduced snowpack, earlier spring snowmelt, and increased likelihood of seasonal summer droughts are projected in the Northeast, Northwest7, and Alaska.

More severe, sustained droughts and water scarcity are projected in the Southeast, Great Plains8, and Southwest.

The Southeast, Midwest, and Northwest in particular are expected to be impacted by an increased frequency of heavy downpours and greater flood risk.

Ecosystems of the Southeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, Northwest, and Alaska are expected to experience altered distribution of native species (including local extinctions), more frequent and intense wildfires, and an increase in insect pest outbreaks and invasive species.

Sea level rise is expected to increase storm surge height and strength, flooding, erosion, and wetland loss along the coasts, particularly in the Northeast, Southeast, and islands.

Warmer water temperatures and ocean acidification are expected to degrade important aquatic resources of islands and coasts such as coral reefs and fisheries.

I thought I would try one more rational explanation...

Increasing the CO2 levels 35% beyond the norm will benefit some regions in the short term, while throwing large regions of the world into chaos.

Again I would reccomend examining the EPA report and supporting science..If you don't believe something track it down. See who wrote it etc.

I would also google the names of any "scientist" issueing reports dismissing the near uninanomous findings of genuine scientists and climatologists.

Whenever I see a scientitific paper discussing how the increased CO2 (and other GHGs) are good for us or unconsequential, I google the "scientist" and usually find them to be something far from what they claim...

There is a lot of propaganda out there because there is a lot of money on the line for folks that will be required to stop polluting.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by jdub297

Equating automobile exhaust with CO2 and GHGs? There is certainly CO2 in exhaust, but it is far from the most dangerous constituent.

Show me ONE study that CO2, alone, causes "long suffering" health problems or "world health implications."

CO2 was the OP topic, and you can't follow it, can you?
GHGs were the EPA subject.
Your rant was about auto exhaust and pollution clean-up and medical effects.

Can't tell the difference?

You're just incapable of responding intelligently, aren't you?

Nothing in any of your last few rants addresses the challenge I posed.

Afraid? Or can't do it?

I really don't give a damn about sulfur dioxide (already the subject of Cap and Trade regs and legislation), nitous oxide, methane, et c. In fact, most of the 6 are NOT components of the auto exhaust boogeyman upon which you based your most previous misdirection/rant.

Have you even read the EPA ruling you are railing against? Do I need to post for third time for you to actually read it? Or are you being intententionally obtuse?

No. Are you just faking ignorance?

I knew exactly the substance of the regs since they were first proposed last Spring. Where were you?

I've posted about this since March; about all 6 of the GHGs subject to EPA regulation. I even anticipated idiotic rants about auto exhausts:

Why Legislate When You Can Regulate?!

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare. It is the first step to regulating pollution linked to climate change.
The EPA also will say tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute to climate change. The action was prompted by a Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases must be regulated if found to be a human health danger.

EPA to Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk

It was not until Obama, Browner, Chu and Holdren gave Anderson the "green light" at EPA to go forward that it did.

There is no doubt that Obama will fight over EPA's exercise of authority recognized by the SCotUS.

Too late! No need to wait for Congress, anyway. They'd been saying all along that if Congress didn't act, they (the Executive branch) would just do it themselves.

Welcome to the "Environmental Dictatorship!"
I told you this was coming:

EPA Poised to Regulate CO2

The Anti-Industrial Coup: Environmental Dictatorship by Executive Decree

OMB Criticizes EPA Over Greenhouse Gas Regulations

"White House Memo Challenges EPA Finding on Warming"

"Decision 'Could Put Jobs, Economic Activity Across the Nation At Risk'"

If you'd read any of these posts, you'd know what I'm talking about.

Ever read anything other than ATS once in a while?

So now that we have dispelled the propaganda that this was all about CO2, lets take a moment to reflect upon the idea of CO2 alone is great.

Given that the topic is "Obama Administration Declares Dangers
of Carbon Dioxide", where is the "propaganda?"

And then you go onto some track about the AGW dogma. Get a life. Learn to coherently reply when adults pose questions and challenges.

How about responding to my query?

Oh, one other thing:

Yipee...car fumes are good for us!!

I am done trying to speak reason to this idiot fest.

Now's the chance to get in your last word...I won't be reading it.
Be sure to ignore everything I said and every scientific study I cited.
I'd be dissapointed if you actually found a grip on reality for a moment.

I thought you were "done." More misdirection, or another brainfart?

Deny ignorance.

jw


[edit on 9-12-2009 by jdub297]