REPLY: Such a nice young man. click I wondered about the “homophobic” comment, since that topic doesn’t get discussed here. With a little searching it is clear why now. click

Unfortunately for you, sometime in the future a potential employer will probably Google your name and find this comment and the foul language you uttered. Such is the risk of ranting on a public forum. – A

Remember comments are due by June 23!

As I mentioned above, the best link for information on the regs is http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html . The deadline for comments is June 23, 2009.

As Roger Sowell notes in the original post, although it’s ideal to write your own comment, its still very effective just to agree with an earlier comment.

Although the EPA regs do not relate to the pending Cap and Trade legislation, the flow of opinions on the regs may indirectly affect the legislation.

The deadline for getting comments in is June 23, 2009, 60 days after the publication of the proposed regs in the Federal Register 4/24/09.

The best link for information on commenting is http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. This has the 26 page full proposal, a convenient 2-page “Summary of the Science…”, and detailed (3 page typescript) instructions for submitting comments.

The earlier your comment is in, the more attention it will get. Over 600 comments are already in, and are accessible via http://www.regulations.gov, with search for docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. Otherwise the http://www.regulations.gov site is hard to navigate.

Touching on specific points in the 2-page “Summary of the Science…” is probably the most effective and concise way to comment.

Please keep those daily updates on WUWT.com as it is enjoyable to read and learn about the current issues facing us today. Recently, you informed us on the desire for the EPA to include CO2 into the Clean Air Act at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/20/making-your-opinion-on-co2-and-climate-change-known-to-the-epa/

However, at the time of you sent it to us, some important details were missing such as a) the exact e-mail address to send our public comments, and, b) the exact science on why the EPA believes this law is needed. After a long search, I have found both of these documents.

a) Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171, Docket Title: Proposed Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-0377

Send public comments to this e-mail address:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=0900006480968e17

b) The EPA Science Fact Sheet on why CO2 needs to be included in this law:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/ScienceFactSheet.pdf

Please share this with your readers so that their opinions can be heard on this important change. Here are the key points on the EPA science “facts” on CO2 according to this document:

Key Points About Climate Change:

1) Heat-trapping greenhouse gases are now at record-high levels in the atmosphere compared to the recent and distant past.
2) These high atmospheric levels are the clear result of human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
3) Warming of the climate system is now well documented, as is evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.
4) The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely the cause of the observed increase in average temperatures and other climatic changes. Most of the warming cannot be explained by natural variability such as variations in solar activity.
5) Future warming over the course of the 21st century, even when assuming emissions growth will be low, is very likely to be greater than observed warming over the past century.
6) The effects of climate change observed to date and/or projected to occur in the future include, but are not limited to: more frequent and intense heat waves, more wildfires, degraded air quality, more heavy downpours and flooding, increased drought, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture, and harm to wildlife and ecosystems.
7) The changes to our climate may increase the likelihood of extreme and high-impact events such as more intense hurricanes.

Health Effects Associated With Elevated Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in the United States Temperature Effects:
1) There is evidence that extremely hot days are already increasing. Severe heat waves are projected to intensify, which can increase heat-related mortality and sickness. A possible benefit of moderate temperature increases includes fewer deaths from exposure to extreme cold.

Air Quality Changes:
2) Climate change is expected to worsen regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death. The impact on particulate matter remains less certain.

Extreme Events:
3) Storm impacts are likely to be more severe, especially along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Heavy rainfall events are expected to increase, increasing the risk of flooding, greater runoff and erosion, and thus the potential for adverse water quality effects. These projected trends can increase the number of people at risk from suffering disease and injury due to floods,
storms, droughts and fires.

Climate-Sensitive Diseases:
4) Potential ranges of certain diseases affected by temperature and precipitation changes, including tick-borne diseases, are expected to increase.

Welfare Effects Associated With Elevated Greenhouse Gas Concentrations in the United States Under the Clean Air Act, “welfare” includes impacts such as effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate; damage to and deterioration of property and hazards to transportation; as well as effects on economic
values and on personal comfort and well-being.

1) The global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, exacerbating storm-surge flooding and shoreline erosion.
2) Rising temperatures will diminish snowpack in the Western U.S., affecting seasonal availability of water.
3) Climate change will likely further constrain already over-allocated water resources in some areas of the U.S., increasing competition amongagricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological uses.
4) Modest climate change, plus elevated CO2, may bring agricultural yield increases in the near term. But, as temperatures continue to rise, these crops will increasingly begin to experience failure. Increases in regional ozone levels will also adversely impact certain crops.
5) Climate change has very likely already increased the size and number of forest fires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so.
6) Changes in climate will cause species to shift north and to higher elevations and fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems.
7) Ocean acidification is projected to continue, which can affect the productivity of marine life such as corals.
8) Climate change impacts in certain regions of the world may exacerbate problems that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the United States.

With all due respect to Dr. Roy Spencer’s arguments, found here, costs must be considered.

Also, the safety factors requirement could be used to argue that capturing and sequestering CO2 creates more danger than allowing the gas to mix into the atmosphere. Concentrated CO2 can leak, displacing oxygen from an area, and cause death to people and animals. People and animals require oxygen to breathe, and will die if breathing high concentrations of CO2.

Further, reducing CO2 will increase energy consumption, so this could be used as an argument against, especially for capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants.

This Link

Click on “Send a Comment or Submission” to make your comments.

You may also click on “Notification,” fill out the form, and check the box for “Public Submissions” to receive automatic notices of comments.

http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2009/04/26/epa-docket-id-no-epa-hq-oar-2008-0508/

I discovered this site today…great information. I have been developing and implementing clean technology employing CO2 for the past 25 years. I (and my customers) have witnessed first-hand the many green benefits of using CO2 as an alternative manufacturing agent. I am really concerned that the hysteria and non-sense promulgated by the politicos will damage this great green manufacturing opportunity for industry.

BTW…I read a blog entry about CO2 (in the EPA-CO2 picture) being a linear molecule. This is not always the case. The CO2 structure will bend when it complexes with various organic molecules. Perhaps CO2 is “bent” when combined with the mindset of the EPA? David Jackson.

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-endangerment-finding-published-in.html

> Scientists already understand that, all else being equal, as one increases
> the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, more goes into the oceans.
Okay, that’s what I said plus I added as long as the ocean’s CO2 amount is mostly constant and paramters in the water do not change an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot result in a reduction of the sinks.

You say to that:
> [..] In fact, only about half of the CO2 that we have been putting into the
> atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels has remained there;
Well, that is very nice, but completly unrelated. If if the sinks would not reduce, but getting slightly bigger every year (which they should, if the oceans are unchanged in the last decades), you would observe the same behavior with a slightly different time constant: some of the anthropogenic CO2 would dissolve in the oceans every year and some would stay there for a while. This has nothing to do with my point:
A change of the sink rate means the oceans change, which means they are a (big?) part of the rise of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
The change of the sink rate is contadictonary to the standard assumption of a pure anthropogenic cause.

> I think part of this effect is due to the fact that as the ocean waters warm
> they do tend to release some CO2 and part is due to other effects
> involving the mixing of surface waters down to deeper levels and such.
Aha, now you spit my question back at me . .
But yes, you seem to see it my way (but without understanding what you are saying). A warming of the oceans for example tends to release additional CO2. (so does in a much stronger dependence the change of the pH-value lets say due to sulphoric acid) , so how big is this amount compared to the human CO2 production?

All the best,
LoN

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3382

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3037794375_3a46f721c9_o.jpg