One thing that often gets overlooked in the climate policy discussions is the role of the global human population. I just visit the usual blogs; I don’t read the newspaper, try not to watch TV news, and in all ways try to avoid the mainstream media. They are absolutely horrible at reporting science news, and that’s almost exclusively what I’m interested in. Am I passing judgement on those that care that Paris Hilton got new sunglasses? Maybe, but that’s a discussion for a different time.

Right now, I’ll be talking about population. In the past year that I’ve been blogging, I’ve done posts on a variety of subjects. Perhaps my favorite was about the role of human respiration in contributing to global CO2 concentrations. This post is a follow-on to that post, so go read that one first.

Interestingly, there was a recent (2006) paper in Biogeosciences Discussions by Prairie and Duarte titled Direct and indirect metabolic CO2 release by humanity that I was unaware of at the time of the last posting on this topic. (I believe that the paper should be free, but don’t know for sure.)
Continue Reading »

From Coal Controversy in Appalachia:

When it comes to coal, perhaps the only thing more controversial than what to do about the heat-trapping carbon dioxide it generates is what to do about the social and environmental costs of getting it out of the ground. Nowhere is the debate over how far we are willing to go for inexpensive energy more contentious than in the coalfields of the Appalachian Mountains, where technology and engineering have allowed the scale of surface coal mines to reach gigantic proportions.

The most controversial mines are known as mountaintop removal mines because coal companies literally remove the tops of mountains with dynamite and earth-moving machines, called draglines, in order to reach coal seams. The waste rock—the remains of the mountains—is piled into neighboring hollows in towering earthen dams called valley fills. The largest fills can approach 800 feet in height and swallow more than a mile of streambed. In southern West Virginia, where the practice is most widespread, some of these behemoth mines are several thousand acres and still growing.

Since Inhofe seems unable to count over 400, I can’t give an accurate number as to the real number of “skeptics”, but it should be one less than it currently states. At least one person on that list has had their views distorted. From my personal discussions with Dr. Castro, I do not believe that he is a “climate skeptic”, and I don’t believe that he would think so either. In fact, on many occasions he has stated that Inhofe has misrepresented his views on climate science.

Climate scientist Dr. Christopher L. Castro, a Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, expressed skepticism of a global warming catastrophe in 2007. “I believe the balance of evidence from the paleoclimate record, recent climate history (particularly since the 1980s), and the anthropogenic attribution GCM (Global Climate Models) experiments (e.g., Meehl et al. type studies) support the conclusion that recent climate change is due, in part, to anthropogenic forcing,” Castro wrote on June 4, 2007. But Castro also said he generally agrees that “other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all” and “models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results.” Castro also said, “GCMs have very limited utility for climate prediction (i.e., seasonal forecasts) or climate projection (i.e., global warming projections) on the regional scale.”

This is what Inhofe wrote in his Senete report. I’m not quite sure what in that paragraph makes one a skeptic. Perhaps not trusting GCMs to accurately predict regional climate.

Anyway, the other person on the list from UofA is definitely a “skeptic”. Dr. Herman recently wanted Dr. Roy Spencer to give a presentation for the departmental seminar series because he thought their should be a “balance” to the “debate”. Whom was Dr. Spencer to balance you might ask? Dr. Pielke! Argh.

Via NPR

The EPA has never before rejected a request from California to set tougher air pollution standards, but Johnson said this time is different because climate change is a global problem.

I don’t know what to say. 17 states want stricter emissions standards and the Bush administration won’t let them. Their reason? Basically that their friends in the auto industry would have it too rough if California was able to set its own standards. The car manufacturers in the piece say that one standard is better than a hodgepog of standards. I can almost see their point. However, if I recall correctly, the only state that is allowed to file a request with the EPA to set tougher pollution standards is California. Other states can then set the same standards as California. Therefore, there would not be a “hodgepog” of standards. There would be 2.

The EPA really has no reason to reject the waiver. During the next year there won’t be much politically contentious legislation, but hopefully after to 2008 elections congress will overhaul the role of the EPA (translation for Republicans: EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency) - to you know - protect the environment.

I can’t wait until Bush is out of office.

Election 2008 Predictions:
Democratic ticket w/ Obama and Clinton will win the popular vote by quite a large margin. The vote in the electoral college will be close though, perhaps due to faulty electronic voting. Democrats will hold on to their slim majorities in both houses of congress.