[Vision2020] Science Article/Website Mismatch Re: US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into Atmosphere: 19.18 Tons, 2008

Sat Jul 16 16:35:04 PDT 2011

In the following post, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences article titled "Satellite-based global-ocean mass balance
estimates of interannual variability and emerging trends in
continental freshwater discharge" was followed by a PNAS website to
the wrong article on the Earth's hydrological cycle.  I was reading
both articles at once, thus the mistake.  The correct website is
below:

Regarding flooding:

"Satellite-based global-ocean mass balance estimates of interannual
variability and emerging trends in continental freshwater discharge"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/09/28/1003292107

On 7/16/11, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want to be taken seriously, dismissing important relevant peer
> reviewed scientific data on a topic under discussion, is a
> questionable tactic.
>
> I'm not sure what the phrase "careens left" means exactly, but do you
> mean in a political sense?
>
> Regarding the science indicating anthropogenic climate change is
> occurring, there are not left wing or right wing, or democrat or
> republican, versions of the laws of physics.  I recommend you not
> dismiss the American Institute of Physics documentation of the history
> of the science and physics regarding the CO2 greenhouse effect, which
> I referenced in the section of my post you indicate "doesn't matter
> much to me..."  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> Also, you are not addressing the facts in a rational manner if you
> dismiss, as you did if you dismissed the content of my post, the data
> regarding total historical human CO2 emissions (500 billion tons),
> which is critical to the essential point I was making:
> "Carbon in the Atmosphere and Terrestrial Biosphere in the 21st Century":
> http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~ymalhi/publications/Malhi%20et%20al%20_%20carb
> on%20biosphere%20atmosphere.pdf
> "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?"
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
>
> There are no misleading statements designed to illicit an emotional
> reaction in my comments in this thread.  Your response might indicate
> an emotional reaction to deny the scientific facts regarding human
> impacts on climate.
>
> It is clear I was contrasting one form of pollution, tons of oil
> dumped into a river, and the reaction this would likely inspire if
> discovered, in fact was inspiring in the case of the Yellowstone River
> oil leak, to the fact that everyone of us in the US, on average, is
> polluting the atmosphere with 19 tons of CO2 every year (2008 figure:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html
> ), yet there is not the same sort of outrage and alarm among many
> people regarding the CO2 pollution, compared to oil pollution in
> rivers or oceans.
>
> I listed the actual and potential impacts of human sourced CO2
> atmospheric pollution, certainly worth as much attention as the
> impacts of oil spills, more fully documented below.
>
> Again, I am stating facts and predictions based on science, not making
> misleading statements.
>
> For example, Moscow's population in July 2009 was 24338.  Using the US
> 2008 19 ton per capita average from the UCSUSA, which probably is a
> bit high for Moscow residents, in part because our electricity is not
> as much drawn from coal fired plants as other areas of the US, Moscow
> residents dump 462422 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
>
> Notice the outrage and headlines regarding Moscow's CO2 pollution?
>
> Even the conservative leaning US Supreme Court has upheld the EPA's
> authority to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas pollutant:
> Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide:
> WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS)
> http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2011/2011-06-20-03.html
>
> Is your position that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas pollutant?
>
> Perhaps you deny the well documented science that human CO2 emissions
> are causing damaging ocean acidification?
>
> Perhaps you think my list of actual or potential impacts of
> anthropogenic climate change, are not supported by scientific
> evidence.  Below are a list of peer reviewed scientific publications,
> and a few news articles referencing credible sources, that support my
> assertions:
>
> MIT study regarding probable temperature increases from human impacts
> on climate:
>
> Journal of Climate 2009; 22: 5175-5204
> "Probabilistic Forecast for Twenty-First-Century Climate Based on
> Uncertainties in Emissions (Without Policy) and Climate Parameters"
> http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1
> http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/44627/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf?sequence=1
>
> Regarding flooding:
>
> "Satellite-based global-ocean mass balance estimates of interannual
> variability and emerging trends in continental freshwater discharge"
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/18/0907610106.abstract?sid=6024442c-0068-431b-aa9f-5f5e690e8452
>
> Regarding drought and desertification:
>
> "Expansion of the Hadley cell under global warming" published 2007:
> Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L06805.
> Rights Management (c)American Geophysical Union (AGU);
> doi:10.1029/2006GL028443
> http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/ir-main&CISOPTR=13325
>
> Regarding sea level rise:
>
> Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2009 paper in Proceedings of the National
> Academy of Sciences indicating potential sea level rise by 2100 of 75
> to 190 cm (close to
> two meters at the high end):
> http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full
>
> Regarding increases in fire frequency or intensity:
>
> Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
> Published Online 6 July 2006
> Science 18 August 2006:
> Vol. 313 no. 5789 pp. 940-943
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1128834
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full
>
> Regarding ocean acidification:
>
> Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
>
> Regarding species extinction:
>
> June 21, 2011 IPSO Report: Extinction Event Inevitable If
> Current Trajectory of Damage Continues.
> http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm
> http://www.sustainablelivingmagazine.org/planet-watch/environment/clean-water/129-our-oceans-in-crisis-new-study
> "Increasing hypoxia, and anoxia... combined with warming of the ocean
> and acidfication are the three factors that have been present in every
> mass extinction event in Earth's history.
> There is strong evidence that these three factors are combining in the
> ocean again, exacerbated by multiple severe stressors.  The scientific
> panel concluded that a new extinction event was inevitable if the
> current trajectory of damage continues.
>
> Regarding disruption of water resources:
> Kashmir: Melting Glaciers, Boiling Conflicts
> http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/kashmir-glacier.htm
>
> Regarding spreading of disease:
>
> Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota
> Science 21 June 2002:
> Vol. 296 no. 5576 pp. 2158-2162
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1063699
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5576/2158.abstract
>
> Regarding potential warfare from climate change, military scholar
> Gwynne Dyer's book "Climate Wars" outlines various scenarios:
> http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/8/gwynne_dyer_on_climate_wars_the
> And US General Anthony Zinni stated in the following article:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html
> “We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a
> retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote
> recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory
> board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research
> for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today,
> and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.
>
> “Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And
> that will involve human lives.”
>
> Assuming the above listed threats from anthropogenic climate change
> are credible, agricultural failures, increase in starvation and
> millions of climate change refuges are likely outcomes, especially if
> world population continues to increase to 8 or 9 billion.
>
> As alarmist and incredible as these predictions regarding the
> consequences of anthropogenic climate warming might appear, they are
> based on calm factual assessments of the various trends by experts in
> their fields of study.
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 7/9/11, Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com> wrote:
>
>> The rest of your email that careens left doesn't matter much to me...
>> since your initial statement uses misleading statements to illicit an
>> emotional (and alarming) reaction.
>>
>> If I would have stated that "19 tons of dihydrogen mono-oxide was dumped
>> into the atmosphere..." and then tried to raise the hackles of the
>> reader by analogizing "If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the
>> Snake River, they'd make headlines and be attacked, etc... I would
>> expect to be dismissed pretty quickly.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:36 PM
>> To: Jay Borden
>> Cc: Donovan Arnold; Moscow Vision 2020
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into Atmosphere:
>> 19.18 Tons, 2008
>>
>> To perhaps nitpick, I'll point out that oil leaks or spills usually
>> don't involve oil being directly put into the atmosphere, though I
>> wonder if the blown oil wells during the Kuwait/Iraq/US war were in
>> some sense polluting the atmosphere directly with oil...
>>
>> But no, I am not saying that 1 ton of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions
>> into the atmosphere is just as harmful to the environment, as 1 ton of
>> oil dumped into a river or ocean coastline, like the Exxon Valdez oil
>> spill.
>>
>> But humanity has dumped hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the
>> atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.
>>
>> Superb American Institute of Physics essay, "The Carbon Dioxide
>> Greenhouse Effect" indicates "By recent calculations, the total amount
>> of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can
>> readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total
>> amount in the atmosphere." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> Total fossil fuel emissions of carbon into atmosphere (not including
>> land use associated emissions) close to 300 billion tons since 1850
>> (total emissions close to 500 billion tons), according to data in this
>> article, "Carbon in the Atmosphere and Terrestrial Biosphere in the
>> 21st Century":
>> http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~ymalhi/publications/Malhi%20et%20al%20_%20carb
>> on%20biosphere%20atmosphere.pdf
>>
>> Another source indicates the 500 billion ton figure for total human
>> sourced carbon emissions is roughly correct: "How do we know that
>> recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?"
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-tha
>> t-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
>>
>> From website above:
>>
>> "Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been
>> extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred,
>> shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the
>> atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have
>> produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2
>> to nearly 500 ppm."
>> --------------------
>> These rapid and immense emissions are overwhelming natural CO2 sinks
>> (oceans, plants) thus significantly increasing atmospheric CO2 level,
>> radiative forcing, and inducing ocean acidification.
>>
>> The predicted impacts, which are already occuring to some degree, are
>> global in extent and potentially will result in mass extinction of
>> species, extremes of drought, flood, fire, catastrophic sea level
>> rise, disruption of water resources (irrigation) from major rivers,
>> agricultural failures, starvation, hundreds of millions of climate
>> change refuges, spread of diseases into different climate zones as
>> climate changes, and likely warfare from any combination of the above.
>>
>> No oil leak or spill, even all of them together, has yet to present a
>> threat to humanity or the biosphere of this magnitude, that I know of.
>>
>> As is often pointed out by skeptics of the severity of the problem of
>> anthropogenic climate warming, some areas of the Earth will be more
>> favorable to agriculture, being warmer and more habitable, the Arctic
>> ocean will open to shipping and resource development, and if the ice
>> sheets on Greenland and Antarctica melt, new land will open for human
>> habitation and development.
>>
>> Such an argument is frankly quite insane, given that sea level rise
>> alone will be a massive global disaster, displacing hundreds of
>> millions of human beings and costing billions upon billions in damage
>> to critical coastal infrastructure...
>>
>> I suppose someone in the construction business might see this as boon,
>> given all the harbors and buildings and homes that would have to be
>> constructed on higher ground, though predicting the new stable
>> coastlines might prove difficult till global warming had played itself
>> out over centuries.
>>
>> A Brave New World indeed!
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 7/7/11, Jay Borden <jborden at datawedge.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the Snake River, they'd
>>> make headlines and be attacked, etc."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean that you are taking the stance of "1 ton of CO2 in the
>>> atmosphere is just as harmful to the environment as 1 ton of oil?"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jay Borden
>>>
>>> DataWedge, LLC
>>>
>>> p 208-874-4185
>>>
>>> f  214-722-1053
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For support questions, please contact:
>>>
>>> dwsupport at datawedge.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Ted Moffett
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:16 PM
>>> To: Donovan Arnold
>>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into
>> Atmosphere:
>>> 19.18 Tons, 2008
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could contract with ExxonMobil or British Petroleum to
>> patch
>>> their oil leaks... Duct tape is remarkably multi-purpose...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I used the word "leaks" to describe human sourced CO2 emissions
>>> (primarily from fossil fuels, not breathing, of course) because a leak
>>> is something that is not supposed to happen, as with oil leaks like
>> the
>>> one polluting the Yellowstone river...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet most people it appears do not think of the CO2 coming out of their
>>> tailpipe, or out of a coal fired plant supplying their electricity,
>> as
>>> a polluting "leak" into the atmosphere, that induces the same degree
>> of
>>> alarm and demands for action to prevent such disasters, as a large oil
>>> leak into a river or the ocean...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet global ocean acidification from human CO2 emissions, along with
>>> species compromising climate change, potentially could be more of a
>>> threat to life in the oceans and on land, than oil pollution from
>> leaks,
>>> though these oil spill disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez or the BP
>>> gulf well explosion, are locally very damaging.
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Donovan Arnold
>>> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll get some duct tape and stop my CO2 leaking right away!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Donovan Arnold
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 7/3/11, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 	
>>> 	From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
>>> 	Subject: [Vision2020] US Per Capita Leaking of CO2 into
>>> Atmosphere: 19.18 Tons, 2008
>>> 	To: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> 	Cc: "Friends of the Clearwater" <foc at friendsoftheclearwater.org>
>>> 	Date: Sunday, July 3, 2011, 3:11 PM
>>>
>>> 	US per capita leaking of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2008, 19.18
>>> tons:
>>> 	
>>>
>> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-co
>>> untrys-share-of-co2.html
>>> 	
>>> 	That means you, I, everyone in the US, on average due to our
>>> economy
>>> 	and lifestyle, dumping 19 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, with
>>> annual
>>> 	amounts close to this figure, year after year.
>>> 	
>>> 	If a corporation dumped 19 tons of oil into the Snake River,
>>> they'd
>>> 	make headlines and be attacked, etc.
>>> 	
>>> 	Yet despite the science indicating CO2 is inducing potentially
>>> 	catastrophic climate change, which includes CO2 polluting the
>>> Earth's
>>> 	oceans via the process of ocean acidification, most people
>>> accept this
>>> 	massive dumping into the atmosphere as though it were an open
>>> sewer,
>>> 	with a curious lack of urgency.
>>> 	
>>> 	The US Supreme Court has ruled the EPA can regulate CO2 as a
>>> pollutant
>>> 	( Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Authority to Regulate Carbon
>>> Dioxide:
>>> 	WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2011 (ENS)
>>> 	http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2011/2011-06-20-03.html ),
>>> yet
>>> 	opposition to both the EPA's authority to enforce such
>>> regulations,
>>> 	and US Congressional legislation to regulate CO2, is formidable:
>>> 	
>>> 	Tuesday, June 7, 2011
>>> 	Media Matters: Opponents of EPA Climate Action Dominate TV News
>>> 	Airwaves -- only scientist interviewed was Patrick Michaels,
>>> noted
>>> 	liar before Congress:
>>> 	
>>>
>> http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/06/media-matters-oppone
>>> nts-of-epa-climate.html
>>> 	------------------------------------------
>>> 	Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>