[QUOTE=ewmayer;136001]I'd guess roughly from "breathing + cooking fire" levels to the current-industrialization ones listed in the above links.[/QUOTE]Until around 1500-2000 years ago those activities were carbon-neutral in what is now the UK. The forest clearing started around then and was largely completed 300 years ago. Until coal began to be used on a large scale (and, especially, not until production of coke was invented, thereby making steel economically viable in other than small quantities), trees were chopped down much faster than they grew back in order to support the iron industry and, to a lesser but important extent, to build naval vessels. A couple of consequences of this changing usage is that housing tends to be built of brick or stone, and a use had to be found for the waste product of the coking industry --- which led to widespread use of gas lighting, heating and cooking.


Paul

White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail
 

[i]"If we don't open the e-mail, it doesn't really exist, right? It's like, quantum ignoramicity, or something..."[/i]

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?ref=us]NYTimes | White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail[/url]
[quote][i]By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: June 25, 2008
[/i]
The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.
[b]
This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”
[/b]
The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm ([url=www.climatescience.gov]www.climatescience.gov[/url]).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.
[b]
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.
[/b]
The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.[/quote]

Spokesman Tony "The Tool" Fratto's comment is quite amusing in light of the "over the past five days..." note as few paragraphs before. But we shouldn't blame Mr. Fratto - after all, he's paid to lie, and just doing his job.

The Bush administration's playbook here [and on innumerable similar issues where they have flouted the law] is predictable:
[i][b]
1. Deny everything, until flat denial becomes simply untenable;

2. Obfuscate: Trot out a hand-picked "expert" who "questions the findings" of your own agency, or use some similar ploy to muddle the issue;

3. Delay: Call for "a more comprehensive approach", set some target date so far out that it basically amounts to "let the next poor sucker deal with it".

4. If 1-3 fail, invoke any of (a) National security, (b) War on terror, (c) Risk to the economy, (d) National sovereignty.
[/b][/i]
Pretty much the same playbook Iran uses with respect to its nuclear program, come to think of it. Works every time.

So when the NYT article mentions that "The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years," the above playbook is in fact what they are referring to.

Seven more months ... seven more months ...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;136603][i]"If we don't open the e-mail, it doesn't really exist, right? It's like, quantum ignoramicity, or something..."[/i]

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?ref=us]NYTimes | White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail[/url]
[quote]The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.[/quote]

Spokesman Tony "The Tool" Fratto's comment is quite amusing in light of the "over the past five days..." note as few paragraphs before. But we shouldn't blame Mr. Fratto - after all, he's paid to lie, and just doing his job.

The Bush administration's playbook here [and on innumerable similar issues where they have flouted the law] is predictable:
[i][b]
1. Deny everything, until flat denial becomes simply untenable;

2. Obfuscate: Trot out a hand-picked "expert" who "questions the findings" of your own agency, or use some similar ploy to muddle the issue;

3. Delay: Call for "a more comprehensive approach", set some target date so far out that it basically amounts to "let the next poor sucker deal with it".

4. If 1-3 fail, invoke any of (a) National security, (b) War on terror, (c) Risk to the economy, (d) National sovereignty.
[/b][/i]
Pretty much the same playbook Iran uses with respect to its nuclear program, come to think of it. Works every time.

So when the NYT article mentions that "The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years," the above playbook is in fact what they are referring to.

Seven more months ... seven more months ...[/QUOTE]

Worse yet, it is not just blocking a waiver. He continues to preempt state actions and insidiously blocks further attempts (IMHO).

[QUOTE=only_human;132212]Just in time for Earth Day he took steps to keep states from meddling with his shrewd insight, knowledge and vision:

[URL="http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/888906.html"]Editorial: Bush tries again to thwart greenhouse gas law: [I]President slips pre-emption of California rule into new vehicle mileage standard[/I][/URL][quote]Quote:
The provision, which would prevent California from enforcing one of its historic greenhouse gas laws, appears on page 378 of a 417-page document released by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters – on Earth Day, no less. It states in part that "any state regulation regulating tailpipe carbon dioxide is impliedly pre-empted," under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, EISA. [/quote][/quote]

Greenland melting not as bad as thought
 

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/science/earth/04greenland.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin]Seasonal Factor Seen in Melting and Ice Shifts in Greenland[/url]
[quote]One of the most vivid symbols of global warming is the torrents of melt water that drain from the lakes that form each summer on Greenland’s ice sheet.

Recent studies have shown that this water, which flows deep into the ice through natural drainpipes called moulins, allows the ice to slide faster over bedrock toward the ocean. And the faster the ice flows, the faster sea levels rise. But a Dutch study using 17 years of satellite measurements in western Greenland suggests that the movement associated with the meltwater is not as rapid as had been feared. The acceleration appears to be a transient summer phenomenon, the researchers said, with the yearly movement actually dropping slightly in some places.

“The positive-feedback mechanism between melt rate and ice velocity,” says the report, published Friday in the journal Science, “appears to be a seasonal process that may have only a limited effect on the response of the ice sheet to climate warming over the next decades.”

Greenland is still losing more ice through melting than it gains through snowfall, other measurements show.

The study was led by Roderik S. W. van de Wal of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research of the University of Utrecht. He said the overall slowdown might be because of changing plumbing deep inside the ice. The study builds on earlier work also showing a limited overall change in ice flow from the surface melting.

The authors and independent experts familiar with the research stressed that the findings did not preclude the possibility that more widespread surface melting could eventually destabilize big areas of Greenland, the world’s second largest ice storehouse. Richard B. Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University, said that big lakes were likely to form as areas of melting spread inland, and that this could unlock new ice regions to start sliding more.

But Dr. Alley and other experts said the new study showed that it was unlikely that Greenland’s ice had already become destabilized in ways that could cause a surge in sea levels.[/quote]

This first is not a new prediction, but another data study consistent with existing prediction.

"Climate Change Equals Stronger Rains

Tracking El Niño with satellites reveals that a warming world means not only heavier downpours--but drier deserts"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-equals-stronger-rains[/URL]

[quote=David Biello]As the globe continues to warm, the rainiest parts of the world are very likely to [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=planning-picnic-in-warming-world-satellite-forecasts-more-rain"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]get wetter[/COLOR][/URL], according to a new study in [I]Science[/I]. Desert dwellers, however, are likely to see what little rain they receive dry up, as the rain becomes even more concentrated in high-precipitation areas.

Atmospheric scientists Richard Allan of the University of Reading in England and Brian Soden of the University of Miami looked at satellite records of daily rainfall stretching back to 1987 to see how warmer temperatures had affected precipitation. That's one of the key climate changes expected from rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. The researchers specifically focused on [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=warmer-atlantic-climate-c"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]El Niño[/COLOR][/URL], the warming of the waters of the tropical Pacific that raises air pressure, changes winds, and recurs every few years.

...

But the [I]Science[/I] study also reveals that the computer projections may be underestimating how severe such downpours may become. Warmer seas resulted in three times as many heavy rainstorms as the models would have predicted—and other studies have shown that such models fail to account for the rapid increase in [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=planning-picnic-in-warming-world-satellite-forecasts-more-rain"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]water vapor[/COLOR][/URL] in the atmosphere.[/quote]

-----

A new carbon capture technique:

"Cement from CO2: A Concrete Cure for Global Warming?

A new technique could turn cement from a source of climate changing greenhouse gases into a way to remove them from the air"

[URL]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide[/URL]

[quote=David Biello]... by simply bubbling [power plant flue gas] through the nearby seawater, a new California-based company called Calera says it can use more than 90 percent of that CO2 to make something useful: [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=combating-climate-change-industry"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]cement[/COLOR][/URL].

It's a twist that could make a polluting substance into a way to reduce greenhouse gases. Cement, which is mostly commonly composed of calcium silicates, requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 2,640 degrees F (1,450 degrees C) by burning fossil fuels and is the third largest source of [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mysterious-stabilization"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]greenhouse gas[/COLOR][/URL] pollution in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Making one ton of cement results in the emission of roughly one ton of CO2—and in some cases much more.

While Calera's process of making calcium carbonate cement wouldn't eliminate all CO2 emissions, it would reverse that equation. "For every ton of cement we make, we are sequestering half a ton of CO2," says crystallographer Brent Constantz, founder of Calera. "We probably have the best [URL="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=future-of-clean-coal-tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage"][COLOR=#0aa1dd]carbon capture and storage[/COLOR][/URL] technique there is by a long shot."[/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;139183]This first is not a new prediction, but another data study consistent with existing prediction.

"Climate Change Equals Stronger Rains

Tracking El Niño with satellites reveals that a warming world means not only heavier downpours--but drier deserts"[/QUOTE]Over here in northern Europe, El Niño means hotter, drier summers. We're currently having our second La Nina summer, which has meant markedly wetter weather in the UK. Right now it's persisting it down and so dark that we've the lights on in the house at almost 9am (admittedly only 8am real time but still several hours after dawn).

One possible sign of global, or at least local, warming is that the wet British summers have been warm and wet in recent years. Historically they've been cold and wet.


Paul

[quote=xilman;139189]
Right now it's persisting it down and so dark that we've the lights on in the house at almost 9am (admittedly only 8am real time but still several hours after dawn).

Paul[/quote]

I like the euphemism:smile:

As for "real time" I'm on Peking time ATM.
It may have been dark in Milton Keynes, but we seem to
escape the precipitation you are getting.
Something to do with topography(?) (where the hills are).

[QUOTE=cheesehead;139183]A new carbon capture technique:

"Cement from CO2: A Concrete Cure for Global Warming?

A new technique could turn cement from a source of climate changing greenhouse gases into a way to remove them from the air"[/QUOTE]

Neat - I'd been contemplating building a concrete house at some point in the near future, but finding out about the energy-intensiveness of making the stuff soured me on it. Might be interesting to contact the company in question, to see how close they are to commercial viability - Los Gatos is only a few miles south of me. [Reading a few articles on the co., it seems they're pretty early in venture-startup mode].

CaCo3 is one of the rawmaterials of portland cement, the high CO2 emissions from it's manufacture is partly because the calcium carbonate needs to be changed to calcium oxide, and the CO2 must be driven out for that to happen. CaCO3 cement in the geologic sence is common, clastic limestone commonly contains it between grains. However, the usefulness of portland cement comes from it's ability to set and harden just from contact with water by forming calcium silicate hydrates and calcium hydroxides as well as other compounds. The article says this CaCO3 cement is similar to chalk, in other words not quite as versatile as portland cement. I am sceptical as to how big of a market share this type of cement can get. (Anyone remember that simple chemistry experiment where one bubbles exhaled air through a straw into a solution containing Ca, turning it white? Calcera's reaction on a smaller scale.)

[QUOTE=KriZp;139231]CaCo3 is one of the rawmaterials of portland cement[/QUOTE]I very much doubt it ---- cobalt is much too expensive to be used in a bulk commodity like cement.

Yes, I know it's bad form to poke fun at typos, but this one was just too good to miss.


Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;139258]I very much doubt it ---- cobalt is much too expensive to be used in a bulk commodity like cement.

Yes, I know it's bad form to poke fun at typos, but this one was just too good to miss.


Paul[/QUOTE]
Indeed, a classic typo.