Supreme Court rules that CO2 can be regulated as an atmospheric pollutant
GreyFlcn
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Through the Clean Air Act.</div><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Supreme Court: EPA can regulate vehicle emissions
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
By a bitterly divided vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate vehicle emissions that cause global warming.
In a major victory for environmentalists, the justices rejected the Bush administration arguments that any limits on new cars and trucks would be incremental at best and not help solve the nation's pollution problems related to increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club's executive director.
"The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. … It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue," he said.
The overall tone of the 5-4 decision, written by the liberal wing of the court, showed concern for global warming and respect for the worries voiced by Massachusetts and other states about diminished coast line and other atmospheric problems associated with warmer temperatures.
The Bush administration had said that those concerns — brought before the justices by 12 states, three cities and several public health and environmental groups — did not merit federal court intervention. The administration also argued that the agency lacked the authority to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change under the Clean Air Act.
"The EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
While the court stopped short of saying that the EPA must actually limit vehicle emissions, it also said "the EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, along with swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Stevens was not on the bench today and Kennedy read the opinion for the majority.)
The opinion prompted caustic dissents from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. During oral arguments last November, Roberts and Scalia had particularly questioned the dangers of global warming.
Stevens' opinion for the majority in its first case on greenhouse gases opened with a reference to the link between "a well-documented rise in global temperature" and the "significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." He emphasized that "respected scientists believe the two trends are related."
Emily Figdor, clean air and energy advocate for U.S. PIRG, one of the groups that had helped bring the case, called the decision "a major turning point in our nation's fight to protect future generations from global warming."
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said his group "believes that there needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases. This decision says that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be part of this process."
There were two overriding questions for the justices to answer.
The EPA had argued that Massachusetts and the other states lacked legal "standing" to bring the case because they could not show that any specific potential injury from the agency's refusal to issue emission standards for new cars and trucks.
Stevens said Massachusetts had clearly made the case for an injury. He noted that there was evidence that global sea levels rose 10 to 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming: "If sea levels continue to rise as predicted, one Massachusetts official believes that a significant fraction of coastal property will be either permanently lost through inundation or temporarily lost through periodic storm surge and flooding events."
Stevens noted that EPA had argued that any U.S. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would be foiled by continued emissions in developing nations, particularly China and India. He said the EPA overstated its case. "Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum," and as a result the states would lack standing.
The second question was whether the EPA properly exercised its authority in declining to issue emission standards for new vehicles. The court said no. The Stevens majority stressed that the definition or "air pollution" in the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. (A provision of the act requires regulation of "any air pollutant" from vehicles that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The act defines "welfare" to include effects on "climate" and "weather.")
The court said the EPA ignored its statutory mandate and had not provided sufficient grounds for not issuing emissions standards.
"EPA no doubt has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination of its regulations. … (But) its reasons for action or inaction must conform to the authorizing statute," the court ruled. "Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
The EPA had argued that even if it had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would not for domestic and foreign policy reasons. Stevens said the reasons offered "have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. … Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment."
Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, said that the states lacked standing. He said the majority "ignores the complexities of global warming."
Scalia, joined by the others in dissent, wrote, "The court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. … No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this court has no business substituting is own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
By a bitterly divided vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate vehicle emissions that cause global warming.
In a major victory for environmentalists, the justices rejected the Bush administration arguments that any limits on new cars and trucks would be incremental at best and not help solve the nation's pollution problems related to increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"Today's ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club's executive director.
"The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. … It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue," he said.
The overall tone of the 5-4 decision, written by the liberal wing of the court, showed concern for global warming and respect for the worries voiced by Massachusetts and other states about diminished coast line and other atmospheric problems associated with warmer temperatures.
The Bush administration had said that those concerns — brought before the justices by 12 states, three cities and several public health and environmental groups — did not merit federal court intervention. The administration also argued that the agency lacked the authority to regulate air pollutants associated with climate change under the Clean Air Act.
"The EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
While the court stopped short of saying that the EPA must actually limit vehicle emissions, it also said "the EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, along with swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Stevens was not on the bench today and Kennedy read the opinion for the majority.)
The opinion prompted caustic dissents from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. During oral arguments last November, Roberts and Scalia had particularly questioned the dangers of global warming.
Stevens' opinion for the majority in its first case on greenhouse gases opened with a reference to the link between "a well-documented rise in global temperature" and the "significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." He emphasized that "respected scientists believe the two trends are related."
Emily Figdor, clean air and energy advocate for U.S. PIRG, one of the groups that had helped bring the case, called the decision "a major turning point in our nation's fight to protect future generations from global warming."
Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said his group "believes that there needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases. This decision says that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be part of this process."
There were two overriding questions for the justices to answer.
The EPA had argued that Massachusetts and the other states lacked legal "standing" to bring the case because they could not show that any specific potential injury from the agency's refusal to issue emission standards for new cars and trucks.
Stevens said Massachusetts had clearly made the case for an injury. He noted that there was evidence that global sea levels rose 10 to 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming: "If sea levels continue to rise as predicted, one Massachusetts official believes that a significant fraction of coastal property will be either permanently lost through inundation or temporarily lost through periodic storm surge and flooding events."
Stevens noted that EPA had argued that any U.S. regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would be foiled by continued emissions in developing nations, particularly China and India. He said the EPA overstated its case. "Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum," and as a result the states would lack standing.
The second question was whether the EPA properly exercised its authority in declining to issue emission standards for new vehicles. The court said no. The Stevens majority stressed that the definition or "air pollution" in the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases. (A provision of the act requires regulation of "any air pollutant" from vehicles that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The act defines "welfare" to include effects on "climate" and "weather.")
The court said the EPA ignored its statutory mandate and had not provided sufficient grounds for not issuing emissions standards.
"EPA no doubt has significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination of its regulations. … (But) its reasons for action or inaction must conform to the authorizing statute," the court ruled. "Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do."
The EPA had argued that even if it had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would not for domestic and foreign policy reasons. Stevens said the reasons offered "have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. … Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment."
Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, said that the states lacked standing. He said the majority "ignores the complexities of global warming."
Scalia, joined by the others in dissent, wrote, "The court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. … No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this court has no business substituting is own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
1. EPA can regulate CO2 as a pollutant
2. States who are taking economic damages from global warming can sue the EPA to enforce this
3. EPA can not enforce it, BUT geopolitics is not a sufficient reason.
4. Pretty much the only sufficient reason would be is if they could prove that the CO2 is not causing economic damages.
5. They can't do that, since even heavy skeptics admit there is atleast "some" global warming effect caused by CO2 emmisions.
And I'm stuck in the crossfire between those two choruses of howling and excrement-flinging monkeys. And each day I grow more tempted to stick my fingers in my ears and shout LALALA at the top of my lungs until both go away in exasperation.
Can you blame me?
CO2 doesn't cause global warming...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll just leave things this simple.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/" target="_blank">NASA Says:</a>
The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
(And it's not caused by <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142" target="_blank">water vapor</a> or "<a href="http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Solar-ClimateLAUTPREPRINT.pdf" target="_blank">galactic cosmic rays</a>" either)
The bottom line is, there aren't any known natural forces that explain the current warming.
_
I plan to explain this in gritty detail in a youtube video I'm putting together.
But I think that was perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence I could find.
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."
The EPA's main weapon is its ability to fine local, state, and corporate entities should they not comply with the standards and laws set forth by Congress that are enforced by the EPA.
To be frank, people need to get real. Unless there is a real, immediate, and above all, <b>tangible</b> negative impact caused by global warming, nobody <b>that counts</b> is going to care about global warming or waste/pollutant emissions.
To be frank, people need to get real. Unless there is a real, immediate, and above all, <b>tangible</b> negative impact caused by global warming, nobody <b>that counts</b> is going to care about global warming or waste/pollutant emissions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And thats exactly why Massachusets and California filed lawsuits claiming damages months ago. :O
Those are the lawsuits that really count.
This lawsuit merely gave them legal precendant to claim damages.
<!--quoteo(post=1618944:date=Apr 5 2007, 01:24 AM:name=Jimmeh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jimmeh @ Apr 5 2007, 01:24 AM) [snapback]1618944[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2-in-ice-cores/</a>
"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeap. Pretty much.
_
Some people use the above argument towards the silly position of:<ul><li>Since carbon doesn't cause ALL warming.</li><li>Then carbon can't cause ANY warming.</li><li>(Mai mind can't contain more than 1 variable, or else it well asplode!)</li></ul>However the real meaning of that is that MOST warmings are caused by increased solar radiation.<ul><li>Either by the sun amping up the volume.</li><li>Or by earth's rotation getting closer to the sun.</li><li>The main reason the current warming seems to be manmade
is because there hasn't been a significant increase in solar radiation for 6 decades.</li></ul>
_
The reason why there's that 800ish year timelag between CO2 and solar forced temperature increases is generally because the Oceans are earth's largest carbonsinks. And most the carbon material sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
It takes about 800 years to warm up the ocean completely during a natural post-iceage warming trend.
And the bottom of the ocean warms up last. (Since hot water rises, and cold water sinks)
seriously though, i'm happy about this.
I don't think that individuals can do much of anything anyways <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
(Despite what certain environmentalists say)
Thats like trying to move a mountain, one pebble at a time.
The real solutions are the ones which require the Least lifestyle sacrifice, and Least public involvement.
While so many people focus on merely doing less, with less.
The real solutions are those that allow people do the same, with less.
Or better yet, doing More with less.
And those solutions aren't going to be brought forward by the public.
They are going to be brought forward by innovative companies,
and progressive government policies that make sure the marketplace is rewarding for these companies.
Pretty much, the government should be setting goals and incentives.
And the businesses should be developing methods to reach those goals.
Rather than paying for the government research and development, pay for results.
And hell not even just mere "science fair" results .
The companies should only recieve their incentives based on market sales.
And of course, place sundown thresholds on those incentives ;D
But make sure they last long enough so that investors feel confident.
In general, market forces are extremely powerful tools.
But they need leadership to make sure they develop technologies that are mutually beneficial to society and shareholders.
And those solutions aren't going to be brought forward by the public.
They are going to be brought forward by innovative companies,
and progressive government policies that make sure the marketplace is rewarding for these companies.
Pretty much, the government should be setting goals and incentives.
And the businesses should be developing methods to reach those goals.
Rather than paying for the government research and development, pay for results.
And hell not even just mere "science fair" results .
The companies should only recieve their incentives based on market sales.
And of course, place sundown thresholds on those incentives ;D
But make sure they last long enough so that investors feel confident.
In general, market forces are extremely powerful tools.
But they need leadership to make sure they develop technologies that are mutually beneficial to society and shareholders.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT, big time. No matter where you stand on the degree on the issue. You can capitalize off of inovation. That's a primary task of the Federal government in my opinion: encourage innovation towards a healthier nation and planet.
You can always use taxes as disnincentives. But there are too many lobbyists from big oil corporations backing politicans from states like Oklahoma and Texas. Interesting that the politicans who criticized Al Gore during the conference where from those two states, politics backed by those who standed to be harmed by what was being proposed.
And now you have China following in the US's wasteful footsteps. If China matches what we are doing in the US we could really be screwing ourselves over, speaking as a planet. It's not just the US as the single most massive piece anymore but we can't very well criticize when we are the biggest player in the problem.
Why does this matter? That is if you have no heart for the thousands of species that will be driven to extinction by this, why care if you are amoral? It shifts weather patterns and makes weather patterns more extreme. So that means biome shifts and more severe storms. If you think that is a small issue you are gravely mistaken.
I don't know if people are just stupid or don't realize that our planet is a closed system with the primary energy input being the sun. Biosphere3 showed us if nothing else how incredibly hard it is to maintain balance at a smaller scale and how critical the oceans are. If you've ever maintained a sal######er aquarium you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's easy to forget it's still a closed system at the planetary scale, and as a result changes are usually low impact. But when the scale of the problem is large enough it will affect the balance of the system. We depend on the rest of the ecosystem to live. We need food to eat, water to drink, and oxygen in the air to breathe. Global warming effects will impact all three of those.
Even if by some strange cooincidence we're not causing global warming.
Atleast we still get to keep all the cool technology.
Which can go a long way to eliminating resource concerns,
and help cope with exponential population growth.
Your posts,
read like,
bad poetry.
GreyFlcn,
Your posts,
read like,
bad poetry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--but are good for the mind and soul.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->After dropping for about 15 years, the amount of sunlight Earth reflects back into space, called albedo, has increased since 2000, a new study concludes.
That means less energy is reaching the surface. Yet global temperatures have not cooled during the period.
Increasing cloud cover seems to be the reason, but there must also be some other change in the clouds that's not yet understood.
"The data also reveal that from 2000 to now the clouds have changed so that the Earth may continue warming, even with declining sunlight," said study leader Philip R. Goode of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. "These large and peculiar variabilities of the clouds, coupled with a resulting increasing albedo, presents a fundamental, unmet challenge for all scientists who wish to understand and predict the Earth's climate."
Cloud changes
Earth's albedo is measured by noting how much reflected sunlight in turn bounces off the Moon, something scientists call earthshine. The observations were made at the Big Bear Solar Observatory in California.
The findings will be published Jan. 24 in Eos, a weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union.
On any given day, about half of Earth is covered by clouds, which reflect more sunlight than land and water. Clouds keep Earth cool by reflecting sunlight, but they can also serve as blankets to trap warmth.
High thin clouds are better blankets, while low thick clouds make better coolers.
Separately, satellite data recently showed that while the difference between high and low clouds had long been steady at 7-8 percent, in the past five years, for some unknown reason, the difference has jumped to 13 percent. High, warming clouds have increased while low clouds have decreased.
Research shows condensation trails, or contrails from jet airplanes, fuel more high-altitude clouds. But they have not been shown to account for all the observed change.
What about global warming?
Earth's albedo appears to have experienced a similar reversal during a period running from the 1960s to the mid-1980s.
Goode's team says there may be a large, unexplained variation in sunlight reaching the Earth that changes over the course of two decades or so, as well as a large effect of clouds re-arranging by altitude.
How do the findings play into arguments about global warming and the apparent contribution by industrial emissions? That's entirely unclear.
"No doubt greenhouse gases are increasing," Goode said in a telephone interview. "No doubt that will cause a warming. The question is, 'Are there other things going on?'"
What is clear is that scientists don't understand clouds very well, as a trio of studies last year also showed.
"Clouds are even more uncertain than we thought," Goode said. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[url=http://www.livescience.com/environment/060106_2005_heat.html]
2005 Ties for 2nd Warmest Year Ever, But Cause Still Uncertain[/url]
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Predictions early in 2005 that the year would be the warmest on record turned out to be off the mark. A new study finds last year tied for the second-warmest year since reliable records have been kept starting in the late 1800s.
The global average temperature in 2005 was 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit (0.3 Celsius) warmer than the long-term average, tying a mark set in 2002.
But a puzzling general pattern, seen the past three decades, persisted: The most significant warming occurred in the Arctic, where the ice cap is shrinking at an alarming pace.
Seven times faster
Since November 1978, the Arctic atmosphere has warmed seven times faster than the average warming trend over the southern two-thirds of the globe, based on data from NOAA satellites.
"It just doesn't look like global warming is very global," said John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
The warmest five years since the 1890s, when reliable record-keeping began:
1. 1998
2. 2005
2. 2002 (tie)
4. 2003
5. 2004
Scientists agree the planet is warming. Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing.
But they are still debating exactly how much and to what extent humans are contributing by burning fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases.
Lack of understanding
In a report last May, researchers said they know very little about how Earth absorbs and reflects sunlight, crucial factors that control climate. Other studies have indicated that increased output from the Sun is responsible for more of global warming than was previously realized.
"Obviously some part of the warming we've observed in the atmosphere over the past 27 years is due to enhanced greenhouse gases. Simple physics tells you that," Christy said. "But even if you acknowledge the effects of greenhouse gases, when you look at this pattern of warming you have to say there must also be something else at work here."
Nobody's sure what that might be.
"The carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is distributed pretty evenly around the globe and not concentrated in the Arctic, so it doesn't look like we can blame greenhouse gases for the overwhelming bulk of the Northern Hemisphere warming over the past 27 years," Christy said. "The most likely suspect for that is a natural climate change or cycle that we didn't expect or just don't understand."
Opposite of expectations
Over the past 27 years, since the first temperature-sensing satellite was launched, the overall global temperature has risen 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit, while the hike in the Arctic has been 2.1 degrees.
"The computer models consistently predict that global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases should show up as strong warming in the tropics," Christy said.
Yet the tropical atmosphere has warmed by only about 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit in 27 years.
A study last year examined natural climate change going back more than 1,000 years. How do the recent changes stack up?
"It would be fairly rare to have this much warming all from natural causes, but it has happened [in the past]," Christy said. "What we've seen isn't outside the realm of natural climate change."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/051208_cloud_definition.html" target="_blank">The Definition of 'Cloud' Gets Cloudy</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Clouds help keep Earth's temperature within a habitable range, and they shuttle life-giving rain to different regions of the planet. Monitoring clouds is a crucial part of weather forecasting.
So you'd think scientists know what a cloud is.
For more than 200 years, researchers have classified clouds according to a system based on ground observations. But the bulk of cloud observations now are being done by satellite from space. And the newer data reveal the old definitions to be inadequate.
The basics
The first scientific cloud classification system was developed in 1803 by Luke Howard, an English meteorologist. Howard's system had three basic categories, depending on what the clouds looked like: cirrus, stratus and cumulus. He also came up with the idea of using the word "alto" for high clouds and "nimbus" for rain clouds.
Curious Clouds
Cirrus clouds are feathery, high-flying clouds that look like thin bands of pulled cotton. Stratus clouds occur at low-altitude clouds and form gray, horizontal sheets in the atmosphere. Cumulus clouds are the prototypical white, fluffy, flat-bottomed clouds common on many days.
Howard's classification system is still used today, but scientists have since divided his three basic categories into several subtypes. A cloud is now categorized according to a wide variety of properties that takes into account everything from its shape and the altitude at which it appears to its internal structure and transparency.
After 200 years of tweaks and enhancements, Howard's system is beginning to show its age. Steven Ackerman, the director of the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, believes it may be time for either another update or perhaps even an overhaul.
Ackerman presented his proposal this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
Conflicting readings
Since about the 1960s, cloud observations have been shifting from being ground-based to space-based, using orbiting satellites.
"We are very good at classifying clouds from the ground," said Ackerman. "But when we want to classify clouds everywhere on the globe we have to use satellites, since people don't live everywhere on the globe."
But not all satellites detect clouds using the same methods. Many record visible wavelengths of light, but others use micro- or infrared waves, so satellites often give conflicting readings.
"At visible wavelengths, a thick ice cloud is very easy to detect," Ackerman said. "However, the same cloud will be invisible to a satellite instrument that measures microwave energy."
Similarly, a wispy cirrus cloud hovering over a snow-covered patch of Earth will be difficult to see with visible light but will show up clearly in the infrared.
Also, as technology improves, satellites are able to take images in higher resolutions.
"Ten years ago these satellites viewed a region as small as about one kilometer [but] now the instruments have a field of view that is one-quarter that size," Ackerman said.
This is generally a good thing, but it becomes problematic when researchers want to compare the new images against older ones to get a sense of global trends in cloudiness over time.
For example, new satellite images might show more small clouds in the Earth's atmosphere, but is that because older satellites were unable to detect them, or are they more common because of environmental change?
As scientists aim for more accurate weather and climate models, they will need to be able to distinguish between natural processes and the effects of improving technology.
Why it's important
A large part of weather forecasting depends on knowing where certain clouds are in the atmosphere and what they're doing. When meteorologists observe, for example, cirrus and cirrostratus clouds thickening and lowering to altostratus clouds, they know that it's probably going to rain soon. Cumulonimbus clouds on a humid day usually herald an approaching thunderstorm.
Clouds are also important for longer-term climate forecasting.
A recent study predicted that climate change will cause storm clouds to shift poleward as the century progresses, leading to more intense rain and snow storms near the Earth's poles and higher chances of drought in the planet's middle regions.
For a while, scientists speculated that tiny atmospheric aerosol particles might be increasing the brightness of clouds. It was thought that brighter clouds might counteract the effects of global warming because they would reflect more of the Sun's rays back into space. This hypothesis has since been called into question, but the example shows how accurate climate predictions rely heavily on a sound understanding of clouds.
Ackerman believes another update of the cloud classification system is in order, one that can better integrate satellite observations. Satellites are revealing things about clouds that were invisible to ground observers, such as waves, V-shaped structures and "streamers" atop thunderclouds. Any revamping of the current system will have to be able to incorporate these new findings.
Ackerman does not know what the cloud classification system of the future will look like, but suspects it will retain many of the aspects devised by Howard, such as classifying them according to the altitude at which they develop and their texture.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html" target="_blank">Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today.
And in this debate there is little data to go on.
A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next.
Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.
Brighter outlook?
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.
"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants.
This lack of understanding runs deeper.
A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Reflecting on the problem
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols.
Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."
Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.
Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.
To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth.
The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.
'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.
Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.
One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.
"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it refreshing to find sites that are willing to discuss science without the condescension and hysteria. Of course, if we look close enough we'd probably find that the editors purchased gasoline from a Shell station which would completely invalidate anything ever posted on the site.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/sunclimate.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/sunclimate.png</a>
Pretty good documentrary on whats going on:
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8012901811669462665&q=the+denial+machine" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+denial+machine</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/lobbyists.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/lobbyists.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/swindle.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/temps.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/temps.png</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNdVDom0GU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNdVDom0GU</a>
Grabbed a recording of one of the more well known skeptics.
Even he agrees.
--"Mars is Warming, And look no SUVs over there!"--
"Shifting dust storms are contributing to global warming that is shrinking Mars southern polar ice caps, scientists say.
Computer simulations similar to those used to predict weather here on Earth show that the bright, windblown dust and sand particles affects Mars' albedo — the amount of sunlight reflected from the planet's surface."
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264082,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264082,00.html</a>
"NASA researchers determined that Mars' warming has little to do with solar flares or sun spots and everything to do with dust that acts just like greenhouse gases in our atmosphere."
<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/mars_warming_su.html" target="_blank">http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/m...warming_su.html</a>
"Dust blamed for warming on Mars
Scientists have been puzzling over the cause of dramatic global warming on Mars, which has made parts of the south polar ice cap disappear in recent years. The answer, it seems, is blowing in the wind: the planet's famous reddish dust."
<a href="http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11531-dust-blamed-for-warming-on-mars.html" target="_blank">http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11...ng-on-mars.html</a>
<a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/BUSINESS/704140399" target="_blank">http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.d...INESS/704140399</a>
That's my own god damn state people and my local newspaper. I have Maple trees looking pretty hurt and wilted (from frostbite) right outside the window I'm typing on. It killed three Azalia bushes in my yard which were openly exposed to the cold.
What was the killing factor wasn't exactly the cold though. It was the long period of record warm days which prompted the decidious plants to start their spring growth. Depending on the species the impact seems to be different. Which is exactly the trend scientists are noticing: biomes are shifting at an unusual rate globally as life is actually very sensitive to climate change.
World renouned economist Thomas L. Friedman
on how Green, is the new Red White and Blue.
<a href="http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=46dd3d6fde496927d1d80e1120a79631b58bde60" target="_blank">http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=46dd...0a79631b58bde60</a>
<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/galileo_denied_consensus.html" target="_blank">Galileo Denied Consensus.</a>
EDIT: Oh, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman" target="_blank">Milton Friedman</a> was a world renowned ecomonist while <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman" target="_blank">Thomas Friedman</a> is little more than a journalist.
However thats a false analogy, since neither side had any solid evidence back then.
_
The analogy I would give is closer to:
"<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/21/bbc-global-warming/" target="_blank">Tobacco is neither Addictive, nor Unhealthy.</a>"
_
All you hear from prominent skeptics is:
1. Disproven and Fraudulent science.
2. Theories without reproducable scientific evidence.
3. Rhetoric which has nothing to do with science. (Usually ad hominem, solving poverty, or the supposed total collapse of our economy)
4. Arguments about the fallout warming would cause. (Valid arguement, but besides the point)
_
What you don't hear?
Any reproducable scientific evidence that shows that green house gas emmisions do not cause global warming.
_
<a href="http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1" target="_blank">And is it any suprise?</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1621668:date=Apr 18 2007, 01:05 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Apr 18 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]1621668[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman" target="_blank">Thomas Friedman</a> is little more than a journalist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A world renouned journalist who covers <a href="http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/264//" target="_blank">foreign policy and economics</a>.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_is_Flat" target="_blank">His book is often required reading</a> for many businesses as a crash course is global economics.
He's right. This US can lead the world in "green technologies", but I'm afraid it's not without political leadership driving the new policies. Or as an old WWII propaganda poster said it: "We can do it!"
<a href="http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/264/" target="_blank">http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/264/</a>
<a href="http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/inconvenient3.html" target="_blank">http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/inconvenient3.html</a>
Left out some compelling details I would have liked.
For instance, that solar forcing is rather obviously causing warming previous to 1970, but has very little effect afterwards.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png</a>
It also tends to confuse the issue on whether artic ice is melting or not.
(Which should be more clear cut that it is a "net" melting.)
It isn't so much an issue for sea level rise purpose.
But because it's removing massive reflective surfaces in an area which gets 24/7 sunlight half the year.
Or that an average 2-3° rise in temperatures isn't "no big deal"
Since between now and the little iceage was less than 2° C
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png</a>
Not to mention, I prefer the updated IPCC forcing chart.
Since it's pretty easy to see that aerosols (airborn dust) is the only major uncertainty.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png</a>
_
But then again, this is about as honest as you could expect from a right wing thinktank.
While it didn't cover everything I would have liked
It also didn't cover anything I would completely object.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/business-11/117756118072000.xml&storylist=newsmichigan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/business-11/117756118072000.xml&storylist=newsmichigan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>California threatens to sue EPA over emissions regulations</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->4/26/2007, 12:02 a.m. EDT<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
By SAMANTHA YOUNG
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->The Associated Press<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will sue the Environmental Protection Agency if it does not act soon on the state's request for permission to regulate automobile emissions, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said.
The state applied in 2005 for a waiver that would exempt California from the federal Clean Air Act, allowing it to more aggressively regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Schwarzenegger said he called EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on Wednesday and told him that his agency was moving too slowly.
"If we don't see quick action from the government, we will sue the U.S. EPA," Schwarzenegger said during a luncheon speech in Beverly Hills.
The administration's letter announcing the intent to sue, a procedural step required six months before a lawsuit would be filed, was being sent Wednesday, Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said.
In the letter, Schwarzenegger demanded that the EPA act on California's waiver request within 180 days.
"Failure to take action by the end of October would mean that more than 22 months have passed with no decision," Schwarzenegger wrote. "This is clearly an unreasonable delay."
California needs the waiver so it can implement a 2002 state law that would require automakers to reduce emissions by 25 percent from cars and light trucks and 18 percent from sport utility vehicles starting with the 2009 model year.
The EPA had delayed acting on the state's request because the agency maintained it did not have the authority to regulate the gases that contribute to global warming.
<b>However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a position that had long been rejected by the Bush administration.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Effectively we have a machine running here with a billion internal interactions, a billion input variables, and a billion output streams, and we're saying "oh well, if we reduce this one input variable figure then it will magically stabilize!" It's utter idiocy.
Lets go back to the CO2 ice core samples. They show a CLEAR causal relationship, that is to say higher global temperature = more CO2 800 years later, and as temperature drops the CO2 similarly drops, 800 years later. CLEARLY CO2 has never driven temperature in the past in any meaningful way. Falcon, you've got lots of graphs and what not indicating basically what I'm saying here. Something is going on that doesn't follow the same patterns we've come to expect out of our climate. The part of it I have a problem with is the argument that goes "See, it DOES look like something scary is going on! Therefore we MUST be right about how bad man made CO2 is!"
NO! It doesn't work that way! This is not a two option discussion, we're talking about a machine with literally billions of contributing parts, if not more.
IMO the Galileo analogy is MUCH more accurate then the tobacco industry analogy at this point in time. The political power is BLATANTLY and CLEARLY on the side of the global warming disaster advocates, and there is just NO real evidence to support their claims. That global warming can be reduced by reducing carbon emissions, that CO2 is even a reasonable contributor to whatever the hell is happening. Frankly I've yet to see them even come to a reasonable consensus for what is happening.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner and more efficient solutions in terms of energy production and general manufacturing. But I refuse to be fear mongered into it by idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. IMO we shouldn't need a global disaster to encourage us to seek clean and efficient methods of energy production. Hell, if we do need one then peak oil is MORE then enough IMO. What I have a problem with is this concept that we need to reduce emissions at any cost. Slowing down humanitarian growth to reduce fuel emissions is not an option IMO unless claims of impending disaster can be objectively verified. Hell, a richer more stable world will be much better off dealing with impending disaster if it becomes necessary then one crippled by an impossible attempt to turn back the clock. Backwards progress is ALWAYS inferior, no matter the motive, I'm not willing to role the dice with the future of our people/planet. In my option the electric cars are awesome. 4 times the energy efficiency in a device is MASSIVE. I love the prospect of renewable energy sources, especially solar. Like falcon said somewhere else, plants only use the suns energy at maby 1-2% efficiency, that's just not sustainable in the long run for what humans will likely eventually need.
Right now what the world needs is progress IMO. Strong effective useful technological improvements to increase our energy use efficiency and decrease our non direct energy reliance. What we don't need is movements to suppress technological advancements that are going to aid in this cause. Suppression of genetically modified foodstuffs, suppression of third world labor forces, suppression of human expansion, suppression of foreign governments. If disaster is impending all of these things are going to cost us more, not improve our situation in the slightest.
Is CO2 causing global warming? I seriously doubt that. Doesn't mean I don't encourage the development of the electric car or technologically superior energy production... My enemies are those who would tell me they know the future, or those who wouldn't allow development of the third world for fear that humans are going to destroy the world by accident.