- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Text Size
A number of people challenge that climate change is real, that it's due to greenhouse gases released by human activities and that it's a threat to human health and the environment. On July 29, the Environmental Protection Agency formally rejected those claims as it turned down 10 petitions asking the Obama administration to reconsider EPA’s “endangerment finding.”
That April 7, 2009, finding argued not only that “greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution” but that they also “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.” Such a decision gave EPA a legal responsibility to begin regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Eight months later, after reading boatloads of public comment on the decision, EPA reiterated its endangerment assessment.
“The endangerment finding is based on years of science from the United States and around the world,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson today. “These petitions — based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy — provide no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare.”
In arguing that EPA arrived at its endangerment ruling incorrectly, the petitioners claimed:
— that the so-called climate-gate emails leaked from archives at the University of East Anglia’s climate research group constituted evidence of a conspiracy by climatologists to misinterpret global temperature data. Not so, EPA now counters. “EPA reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions.”
— that recently discovered errors in the most recent climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, make the entire document suspect. Although EPA acknowledges the document wasn’t perfect, it “confirmed only two [errors] in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level.” Neither of the errors “undermines the basic facts that the climate is changing in ways that threaten our health and welfare,” the agency now says.
— that pertinent new climate studies were never considered by the IPCC, calling into question its most recent climate assessment. EPA discounts the charge, arguing that indeed, “the studies in question were included.”
— and that during its endangerment deliberations, EPA ignored even newer data than would have been available for the IPCC document — studies that purportedly refute the endangerment finding. No way, EPA maintains: Data referred to by the petitioners were “misinterpreted” in order to come to that conclusion.
Clearly, that won’t be the end of the debate, much as EPA might hope it is. The agency offers more details about responses to the petitions at its website.
Found in: Climate Change, Environment and Science & Society
- Science & the Public : EPA: Greenhouse gases still endanger health
- Science & the Public : EPA says greenhouse gases 'endanger' health
- Science & the Public : 'Climate-gate': Beyond the embarrassment
- Science & the Public : IPCC's Himalayan glacier 'mistake' not an accident
- Science & the Public : IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
- Science & the Public : IPCC relied on unvetted Himalaya melt figure
- Science & the Public : Climate science: Credibility at risk, scientists say
- Science & the Public : IPCC looks to vet, report climate-science better
- Environmental Protection Agency. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. [Go to] (updated July 29, 2010).
- Science & the Public : GNP’s glaciers: Going, going . . .
- Science & the Public : Insurance payouts point to climate change
- Science & the Public : Bush meat can be a viral feast
- On the Scene : Vying for the title of World's Fastest Cell
- Deleted Scenes : Moony shot
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
Land use changes like farming and the urban heat island effect.
Documented flaw in the raw temperature collection that feeds the three temperature records the EPA examined.
Global circulation changes, especially the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that was in a warm phase from about 1979 to its recent change to its cool phase.
In general, the "skeptics" camp seems more willing to look at all the inputs than groups like the EPA, CRU, the IPCC (which was strongly influenced by CRU), etc.
I'll spend some more time reading the EPA report, but this comment from their fact sheet is so painful, I want to inflict, err, share it:
Petitioners asserted that warming has slowed or stopped over the last decade, contrary to scientists' expectations, and in spite of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In reality, the last decade was warmer than the previous decade, and warming has not stopped. Climate change is a long-term phenomenon, unlike day-to-day variations in weather. Thus, climate change trends should be discussed over the long term, as opposed to on a year-by-year basis.
So this says:
Comparing one decade with another is too short, but looking at two decades together is okay. (Note this will suppress most solar cycle effects that are interesting but don't have good theories behind them.)
"The last decade was warmer" is completely consistant with "warming has slowed or stopped over the last decade."
Climate change should be discussed over several terms. ENSO effects have a scale of a year or so (but longer term effects). Solar has several periods, the shortest is about 11 years. The PDO (and the smaller Atlantic Meridional Oscillation) have a period about 60 years, and so on. Recent glacial retreat has disclosed that glaciers had retreated more 5000-7000 years ago as mountain passes used by people have been rexeposed as has wood debris from higher regions that are still ice covered.
The report will do nothing to end the debate. Personally, I think it would be nice to restart the debate by examining the quality of the raw data and tracing its effects through processing and modeling.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” adding that “...we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!”
So is your one-sided report.
Richard C. Savage
Meteorologist
Denying it only prolongs and increases the agony that future generations will have to endure.
This is precisely why I stopped subscribing to Science News. They started using these kinds of political tactics when they changed to a new format 2 years ago. It's been downhill ever since. This is the kind of behavior I expect from a tabloid newspaper, rather than what was once by far my favorite science magazine.
Skepticism is part of the scientific method. In years past, SN would have made great effort to document and publish the skeptics' objections (and they make a very compelling case). No longer, and what a shame. Why? What happened? Since when has real science reporting been replaced by politics and fluff? Has the SN staff been taken over by a bunch of "science deniers?" It appears so.
“Or (the unbelievers’ state) is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it....” (Quran 24:40)
This verse mentions the darkness found in deep seas and oceans, where if a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it. The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light (see figure 1). Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all.[1] Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment. Human beings cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters.
Figure 1: Between 3 and 30 percent of the sunlight is reflected at the sea surface. Then almost all of the seven colors of the light spectrum are absorbed one after another in the first 200 meters, except the blue light. (Oceans, Elder and Pernetta, p. 27.)
Scientists have recently discovered this darkness by means of special equipment and submarines that have enabled them to dive into the depths of the oceans.
We can also understand from the following sentences in the previous verse, “...in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds....”, that the deep waters of seas and oceans are covered by waves, and above these waves are other waves. It is clear that the second set of waves are the surface waves that we see, because the verse mentions that above the second waves there are clouds. But what about the first waves? Scientists have recently discovered that there are internal waves which “occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities.”[2] (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Internal waves at interface between two layers of water of different densities. One is dense (the lower one), the other one is less dense (the upper one). (Oceanography, Gross, p. 204.)
The internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because the deep waters have a higher density than the waters above them. Internal waves act like surface waves. They can also break, just like surface waves. Internal waves cannot be seen by the human eye, but they can be detected by studying temperature or salinity changes at a given location.[3]
see it and more in the scientific meracles of hollyquran or found also in flagnotwhite.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.