iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA Announces Landmark Greenhouse Gas Regulations Plan For Nation's Biggest Polluters

Pollution

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 12/23/10 04:49 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

The Obama administration announced landmark plans Thursday to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Unites States. A press release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that new standards granted under the Clean Air Act will be implemented in 2012. The EPA also announced that it is taking unprecedented action to issue air permits to industries in Texas, due to the state's non-compliance with new regulations that are set to begin on January 2.

The EPA's new plan will establish standards specifically for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, both of which combine to represent roughly 40 percent of GHG pollution in the United States.

From the EPA's press release:

"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change," Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home."

The EPA has recently undergone mounting pressure from lawsuits filed against them by several states, local governments and environmental organizations over their failure to update the pollution standards.

The agency plans on using a "common sense" approach, and assures that it will provide a clear path for the industries. As per Thursday's announcement, the EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and refineries in December 2011. It will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively. This schedule will allow the agency to host listening sessions with the business community, states, and other stakeholders in the issue in early 2011, long before their policy-making begins. They hope that the feedback they receive at this time will lead to smart, cost-effective, and protective standards.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set industry-specific standards for every new source that emits significant amounts of harmful pollutants. These standards are referred to as New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), They set the levels of pollution that new facilities are allowed to emit, and they also address the air pollution that is already being emitted from existing facilities. They are required to take into account cost, health, environmental impacts, and energy requirements. The EPA must also periodically update the standards they create in order to reflect any improvements in technology.

The new initiative will likely face antagonists, such as lawmakers of the Republican Party, who will assume leadership of the House of Representatives next month. The Republican Party caused the death of a former proposed cap-and-trade program bill due to their arguments that it would be too costly and some's skepticism about the scientific evidence behind climate change.

Perhaps another opponent will be oil-producing Texas, which emits many more GHG than any other state. The EPA announced Thursday that it will be be taking unprecedented action to directly issue greenhouse gas permits to industries in Texas, due to the state's unwillingness to comply with new greenhouse gas regulations that go into effect January 2, the AP reports.

Despite possible opponents, senior EPA official Gina McCarthy remains hopeful about the new plan. She believes the move will "not only sustain jobs in the U.S. but grow jobs."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

The Obama administration announced landmark plans Thursday to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Unites States. A press release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announce...
The Obama administration announced landmark plans Thursday to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Unites States. A press release from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announce...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,399
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
8020vision
Let's leave the world better than we found it...
03:11 PM on 12/31/2010
trickynick136 - Regarding your comment "the earth has gotten colder not hotter-- didnt you get the memo?"

No, I didn't get that memo. I got this one:

http://8020vision.com/2010/07/29/state-of-the-climate-hottest-decade-one-record/

You are buying in to the Big Oil talking points, as they try to slow down our transition to cleaner greener renewable energy. Come on over. Big Oil doesn't care about you. Let's leave the world better than we found it.

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision
12:05 PM on 12/30/2010
EPA - FY11 - $0...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
11:08 AM on 12/28/2010
maxwells: I could not find the pdf file of your first link.

But the letter you describe is reported on here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

And there is some background info about Kenneth Green here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/kenneth-green

And a great editorial about "Using the Stolen emails to Cripple Policy" is at:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climatespin-using-stolen-emails-cripple-policy

The editorial has a link to an article by Stephen Hayward.

Thanks for the info!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:22 PM on 12/27/2010
Oh, and here's a link to one letter from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Reserach (AEIPPR), by Stephen Hayward and Kenneth Green.
www.desmog­blog.com/s­ites/beta.­desmogblog­.com/files­/AEI.pdf

Sadly, it reads like dangling bait at scientists in a DIRECT BRIBE attempt.
Luckily, one scientist blew the whistle on these jokers and their so-called
"research institute".

But what motivated these two clowns?

Well, Hayward professes that global warming concerns are, at best, silly...
www.aei.or­g/issue/24­545.

And, not surprisingly, both of these guys are virulently anti-IPCC
www.weekly­standard.c­om/Content­/Public/Ar­ticles/000­/000/013/2­75tmktp.as­p

Isn't that a shocker?

But here's the question...Where'd they get the bait money?

Well, since 1998, ExxonMobil has steadily bankrolled the AEIPPR to the tune of
at least $2,825,000.

1998 - $200,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000 - $240,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001 - $230,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002 - $260,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003 and 2004 - $230,000 both years from ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2005 - 2008 - $240000 each year from ExxonMobil Foundation
ExxonMobil 2007 Worldwide Giving Report

2009 - $235,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
ExxonMobil 2009 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

Exxon probably stuffed their 2010 stocking too, topping out at $3M+

ROTFL!

Why, if lying professionally didn't make me want to vomit, I might be tempted myself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:24 PM on 12/27/2010
Oh, and by the way, MY BAD! To get them to work. add an http:// to any of my www. links that lack them.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
08:41 AM on 12/28/2010
AGW isn't real because I hate Al Gore. There, can I have my $10,000 now? Ha, ha.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kiel
Liberation Philosopher
04:27 PM on 12/27/2010
All pollution should be banned. It is our air, water, and earth--besides, it will benefit business to reduce waste to zero.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
02:21 AM on 12/29/2010
The solution to pollution is prosecution
04:27 AM on 12/29/2010
You miss prostitution
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel R Cobb
A Democrat, a Patriot with a Brain
03:37 PM on 12/27/2010
I hope that Lisa Jackson knows the battle she will face from the coal and petroleum industries, and even the utility companies. The don't want to spend another penny on clean air. The oil and coal industries are behemoths when it comes to dominating state and federal politics, controlling the laws our legislators pass and even which laws that we choose to enforce. The Clean Air Act has been on the books for 40 years and has been routinely ignored by these industries. Even poltical carreers are made or squashed by these corporate powerblocks. Of course, citizens suffer the consequences with increased rates of cancer, heart attacks, respiratory ailments, asthma, and other illnesses. And the problems aren't only local. Increased levels of coal-sourced mercury in tuna is making that important food source poisonous.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
08:44 AM on 12/28/2010
It's going to be even worse now that the corporate controlled Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to fix, err, "influence" elections and can keep it completely secret.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel R Cobb
A Democrat, a Patriot with a Brain
06:27 PM on 12/28/2010
Indeed, Blackbird. The Supreme Court is at this point an activist court with a right-wing agenda. It has perverted the notion of blind justice.
photo
FormerReaganite
Government Regulations Save Lives
02:24 AM on 12/29/2010
The time has come to start decommissioning coal plants, one by one, as is feasible, until they are gone completely. And for Godssakes, do not build any NEW ones!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:02 PM on 12/27/2010
What that means is that you *claim* that by cherry-pic­king from his data, you could support your voodoo beliefs in overall cooling by clouds.

mioffe
"Please read about Dessler, he provide more than enough measuremen­­t supporting my claim."

But you have failed to even specify which of his measurements you're using and which you're omitting. In other words, you have not even bothered to do your own cherry-pic­king.
02:58 PM on 12/28/2010
Yes I found in his work, budget of radiation and use that budget.

mioffe 04:33 AM on 12/27/2010 16 Fans mioffe "Who is Dessler?
Why I need completely agree with him, with you or others?"

This question "who is Dessler" do not mean that I do not know him, it is mean that he is not God and I no need completely agree with him.

mioffe "Please read about Dessler, he provide more than enough measuremen­­­­t supporting my claim."
"Yes I found in his work, budget of radiation and use that budget.
Other his analyses do not interestin­­­g for me, because they are wrong in my opinion."

In this statenent I make points where I could use his founding and still think that he is wrong in my opinion.

"The truth is that Dessler's work proves just the opposite of mioffe's claim and mioffe is lying."
Dear ObjectiveR­ealist, maybe for you Dessler's work is enough, but I am honestly disagree as with you, as with Dressler, and you must know where I am disagree, if you read my posts.
If you understand my point why you accuse me in lying?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:17 PM on 12/28/2010
But you have failed to even specify which of his measuremen­ts you're using and which you're omitting. In other words, you have not even bothered to do your own cherry-pic­­king.

You ARE lying; none of Dessler's measurements support your claims. If they did, you would have specified which measurements, how Dessler's interpretation erred, why yours is correct, and you would have submitted all this to a legitimate climate science journal, not to the Huffington Post, if your interpretations were scientifically legitimate. They are not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:02 PM on 12/27/2010
Oh yeah, I'm sure this is gonna go real smooth-like in Texas.

(pronounced Te-has, 'cuz it's Spanish)

THE STARS AT NIGHT, ARE OBSCURED BY EXCESSIVE CO2, METHANE, OZONE, AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, SPECIFICALLY FROM POWER PLANTS AND PETROLEUM REFINERIES

*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*CLAP*

DEEP IN THE HEEAAAAAAAAAART OF TEXAS!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:22 AM on 12/27/2010
"In order to feel like a real-big macho-man, I have to drive my Humvee in rush hour traffic through downtown, and I want to watch my old-fashioned, inefficient power plant spew smoke and GHG emissions."
03:56 AM on 12/27/2010
Dear ObjectiveRealist:
"Real efficiency of movement 1 person (weight 200 Lb.) in car (weight 4000 Lb.) is less than 1%."
Do you read my remark why it is only 1%?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:07 AM on 12/27/2010
Your "opinion" is irrelevant. All that matters in science is what you can quantify, and what you have proved that you can quantify is absolutely nothing.

mioffe 22 minutes ago (3:42 AM)
16 Fans
Become a fan
Who is Dessler?
Why I need completely agree with him, with you or others?
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it

ObjectiveRealist 18 minutes ago (3:46 AM)
156 Fans
You know who Dessler is. Just 40 minutes ago you claimed him as support for your crackpot hypothesis­, because you know he is a legitimate climate scientist. Your problem is that your claim ABOUT HIS WORK is false; his work does not support your claim, it contradict­s your claims, clearly and indisputab­ly -- in other words, you lied ABOUT Dessler, plain and simple.

mioffe 40 minutes ago (3:02 AM)
16 Fans
Become a fan
Please read about Dessler, he provide more than enough measuremen­­t supporting my claim.
Favorite (1) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it

ObjectiveRealist 13 minutes ago (3:51 AM)
156 Fans
The truth is that Dessler's work proves just the opposite of mioffe's claim and mioffe is lying.
Favorite (1) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it
mioffe 11 minutes ago (3:53 AM)
16 Fans
Become a fan
Yes I found in his work, budget of radiation and use that budget.
Other his analyses do not interestin­g for me, because they are wrong in my opinion.
04:33 AM on 12/27/2010
mioffe "Who is Dessler?
Why I need completely agree with him, with you or others?"

This question "who is Dessler" do not mean that I do not know him, it is mean that he is not God and I no need completely agree with him.

mioffe "Please read about Dessler, he provide more than enough measuremen­­­t supporting my claim."
"Yes I found in his work, budget of radiation and use that budget.
Other his analyses do not interestin­­g for me, because they are wrong in my opinion."

In this statenent I make points where I could use his founding and still think that he is wrong in my opinion.

"The truth is that Dessler's work proves just the opposite of mioffe's claim and mioffe is lying."
Dear ObjectiveRealist, maybe for you Dessler's work is enough, but I am honestly disagree as with you, as with Dressler, and you must know where I am disagree, if you read my posts.
If you understand my point why you accuse me in lying?
04:17 AM on 12/27/2010
ObjectiveRealist 2 hours ago (2:37 AM)
200 ÷ 4000 = 1/20 = 5%
not "less than 1%"
you crackpot.
mioffe 1 hour ago (3:00 AM) Dear ObjectiveR­ealist.
Efficiency of engine in car is around 30%.
Production of gasolin from oil has efficiency less than 45%.
Also energy is going to airconditi­oning, lights and others equipments in cars.
05:12 AM on 12/27/2010
Dear ObjectiveR­ealist,
I am waiting for apology for "you crackpot." "Your "opinion" is irrelevant­." "mioffe is lying."
"his work does not support your claim, it contradict­­s your claims, clearly and indisputab­­ly -- in other words, you lied ABOUT Dessler, plain and simple." "BS" and many others supports of your knowledge"
Anyway, I will forgive you, it is your problems, not mine
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:14 PM on 12/27/2010
Those are not "points" they are just more baseless claims from you.

mioffe:
"In this statenent I make points where I could use his founding and still think that he is wrong in my opinion."

To make any "points" you must quote the exact measurements that support your claims, but of course that will never happen because as you and I both know, no actual measurements support your claims.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:33 AM on 12/27/2010
Do you have ANY measuremen­­­ts supporting this claim?

mioffe:
"This redirectio­­n of energy, where clouds work as mirror for infrared radiation will follow each others, while all 100% of energy will go to space."
02:38 AM on 12/27/2010
Dear ObjectiveRealist, I answer on your question hour before, and little bit different:
mioffe 1 hour ago (1:07 AM) 16 Fans ObjectiveR­ealist
“That is a lie, plain and simple. How plain and simple? You yourself admit that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which means that for as long as it remains a vapor, it is trapping heat.”
YES. It is trapping heat and at the same times AS LIGHTER THAN MOST GASES IN AIR it going to cloud level, where CONDENSATI­ON RELEASED AS LATENT HEAT, AS TRAPPED INFRARED RADIATION.

“ Add to that, infrared radiation is omnidirect­ional, meaning that each photon is equally likely to be emitted in any direction, meaning that only about half of that 539kcal will even be emitted in the direction of space, neglecting the probabilit­y of being reabsorbe­ by a CO2 molecule, or another H20 molecule”
You are right 50% of energy will go to space, where after clouds we have not a lot of molecules of H20 and it will be likely in space.
50% of energy will go back to earth, where they will meet clouds, with almost 100% of possible water vapor, which will collect this energy and redirect to space 50% of this energy.
This redirectio­n of energy, where clouds work as mirror for infrared radiation will follow each others, while all 100% of energy will go to space.

Is it a lie, plain and simple?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:43 AM on 12/27/2010
I demand measurements, not your babbling, so I repeat the question.

Do you have ANY measuremen­­­­ts supporting this claim?

mioffe:
"This redirectio­­­n of energy, where clouds work as mirror for infrared radiation will follow each others, while all 100% of energy will go to space."

You have so far posted no MEASUREMENTS SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS which is what is required of you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:09 AM on 12/27/2010
It is just one plain and simple lie after another from you, mioffe!

http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
There are several plausible mechanisms for creating
a negative ("cooling") water vapor feedback in the UT (see, e.g.,
the review by Held and Soden 2000). One oft-cited
mechanism invokes the drying effects of deep cumulus
convection, arguing that the mean detrainment altitude
of deep convection will be both higher and cooler in a
warmer climate compared to the present. Because the
water vapor content of air pumped into the UT by convection is governed by the saturation vapor pressure at
the temperature of cloud detrainment, this would imply
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:41 AM on 12/27/2010
Do you believe the optical properties of the bottoms of clouds differ from the optical properties of the tops of clouds? If not, why do you assume that 100% of downward radiation is reflected by clouds back upward, but 0% of upward radiation is reflected by clouds back downward?

mioffe:
"50% of energy will go back to earth, where they will meet clouds, with almost 100% of possible water vapor, which will collect this energy and redirect to space 50% of this energy.
This redirectio­n of energy, where clouds work as mirror for infrared radiation will follow each others, while all 100% of energy will go to space."

Because you are a science deniar, of course.
05:11 AM on 12/29/2010
Are all scientist deny that clouds work as a mirror, Bolda?
02:25 AM on 12/27/2010
What I found interesting on this many participants are very sure in their thought.
They do not try to found mistakes in opponent publication; they are trying destroy personality.
For example, Richard Lindzen as bad scientist, and only bad Companies are giving him money for research.
It is politic, not science debate.
If Lindzen is bad scientist, let name good scientists and for what good Companies they are working.
I have the same problems with ObjectiveRealist:
“That is a lie, plain and simple. How plain and simple? BS, it is lie, I do not believe you, etc”
Where are the real questions, dear ObjectiveRealist?
How work your logic, when you read my answer on your question?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:28 AM on 12/27/2010
Your answers are lies, as I have proven below, mioffe, using ACTUAL logic.

You yourself admit that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, which means that for as long as it remains a vapor, it is trapping heat. Add to that, infrared radiation is omnidirect­­ional, meaning that each photon is equally likely to be emitted in any direction, meaning that only about half of that 539kcal will even be emitted in the direction of space. Of that half, each has a significan­t probabilit­­y of being re-absorbe­­d by a CO₂ molecule or another H₂O molecule, which you have also neglected.

Maximum possible ≥ 2 * crackpot mioffe's guess
∴ mioffe overstated maximum possible by at least 100%
QED
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:36 AM on 12/27/2010
crackpot mioffe's guess ≥ 2 * maximum possible
∴ mioffe overstated maximum possible by at least 100%
QED
02:17 AM on 12/27/2010
What I found interesting on this site and many others in the Huffington post it is many participants are very sure in their thought.
They do not try to found mistakes in opponent publication; they are trying destroy personality.
For example, Richard Lindzen as bad scientist, and only bad Companies are giving him money for research.
It is politic, not science debate.
If Lindzen is bad scientist, let name good scientists and for what good Companies they are working.
I have the same problems with ObjectiveRealist:
“That is a lie, plain and simple. How plain and simple? BS, it is lie, I do not believe you, etc”
Where are the real questions, dear ObjectiveRealist?
How work your logic, when you read my answer on your question?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:27 PM on 12/28/2010
Richard Lindzen, miraculously, thinks that cigarettes werent harmful, that AGW isnt happening, and that CFCs werent harming the ozone. And was paid by industry to say all three things. He operates more like a lawyer than a scientist, just cherry picking what he wants to say and ignoring everything else. A similar tactic is used by creationists. I'm surprised he isnt one as well.

Anyway, he's one guy. But MIT climate group expects an average of 5C (possibly 7C) temperature increase by 2100, thanks to global warming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
10:05 AM on 12/29/2010
Richard Lindzen in action here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CqjTJLL2E

He is trying to refute Bill Nye's claim that ice melt could disrupt ocean currents.

Bill says the fresh water from ice melt could "upset" some ocean currents. Somehow Richard Lindzen heard Bill say the Gulf Stream would "shut down."

Creepy.
02:08 AM on 12/27/2010
The problem with America is that we are schizophrenic. We power our vehicles with dirty fossil fuels bought from despotic regimes like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and then bitch about dictator Chavez and Muslim fundamentalism. We heat our buildings with dirty fossil fuels like coal, adding to global warming and then bitch about how the severe weather we experience is interfering with our holiday travel plans. We don't want to spend alot on all the junk we buy so we get it from China, sending our jobs overseas (and supporting a totalitarian regime) and then bitch about high unemployment at home and how China now owns us. We want to cut the deficit and then everyone gets a tax break. Luckily there is a solution to most of our problems and it is simply this: Solar energy. The sun provides us with enough energy to power all human activity thousands of times over. And guess what? It's is absolutely free. We need to accept the following "Sputnik" challenge: The whole US electrical grid powered by solar energy by 2025. In the future burning fossil fuels will seem as quaint as horse and buggies and whale oil seems to us today and the countries that get off that dirty fossil fuel tit the soonest are the ones that will own the future. Not to mention that it may just save the planet. Or let's just accept the status quo. and keeping bitching because God knows we love to bitch.
02:33 AM on 12/27/2010
Globalization takes our jobs overseas. Let it be!
Goods from China and others developed country floods our supermarkets. Let it be!
We start this process, made and still making profits from it and it is too difficult to return back to 1980.

Only new ideas to create jobs inside USA, which will never goes overseas, could save our economy:
In huge power plants we are losing 80% of energy-heat energy in vain.
Real efficiency of movement 1 person (weight 200 Lb.) in car (weight 4000 Lb.) is less than 1%.
Changing our transportation systems, our electricity production, raising the forests as source of energy could provide 100% of employment, make our country energy independent, and fight climate change with help of USA, Canada, and Mexico.
In these directions only Government could really help.
As Republicans, as Democrats as all our population must learn these lessons.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:37 AM on 12/27/2010
200 ÷ 4000 = 1/20 = 5%
not "less than 1%"
you crackpot.
03:00 AM on 12/27/2010
Dear ObjectiveRealist.
Efficiency of engine in car is around 30%.
Production of gasolin from oil has efficiency less than 45%.
Also energy is going to airconditioning, lights and others equipments in cars.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:36 PM on 12/28/2010
agreed, but let's site it in the built environment. chevron, bp, goldman sachs, google and other trillionaire robber barons are trying to destroy all our open space so they can MONOPOLIZE this ubiquitous free fuel!! and well-intentioned but ignorant "environmentalists" are aiding and abetting!!

german style feed in tariffs will knock out well over 50% of the GHGs produced by buildings and can tackle a huge amount of the new electrical vehicle load, all from within the already-built environment. the power will be decentralized, democratized, and affordable and the profits will flow to US instead of Big Energy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:31 AM on 12/27/2010
Proportionally -- how, exactly?

mioffe 36 minutes ago (12:50 AM)
16 Fans
Become a fan
The more rain, the more lighting, than more lighting, than more nitrogen nutrition.
It is so simple dear ObjectiveR­ealist
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it
ObjectiveRealist 29 minutes ago (12:58 AM)
156 Fans
Again, I remind you that to be relevant you must quantify all your claims and all your measuremen­ts. You must also publish your methodolog­y, and your results must be reproducib­le via the methodolog­y you describe.
HOW MUCH more lightning do you predict as global warming continues, and HOW MUCH more nitrogen do you predict that will add to the atmosphere­?
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Permalink | Share it
mioffe 16 minutes ago (1:10 AM)
16 Fans
Become a fan
It is always proportion­ally, but who care?
ObjectiveRealist 10 minutes ago (1:17 AM)
156 Fans
Real scientists care.

Proportionally -- Linearly? Logarithmically? Exponentially? Inversely? Inverse of the square, or some other exponent? It's amazing! You know even less about math and science than you do about English!
01:40 AM on 12/27/2010
Dear ObjectiveRealist, about English you are right, about all other stuff:
I have BS in Physics, 20 years of experience as Designer Engineer for new products in Company with 15,000 employee, 11 patents.
6 years I am studiing climate change, please keep it in mind, when naming me a lier.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:44 AM on 12/27/2010
I don't believe you. You have told me too many lies already.

mioffe:
"I have BS in Physics, 20 years of experience as Designer Engineer for new products in Company with 15,000 employee, 11 patents."

But if I did believe you I'd tell you to stick to your corporate product development work and leave climate science to the professionals.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:49 AM on 12/27/2010
Do you have ANY measuremen­­ts supporting this claim?

mioffe:
"This redirectio­n of energy, where clouds work as mirror for infrared radiation will follow each others, while all 100% of energy will go to space."