<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: Devil in the ACES details &#8211; fossil fuel industry pork</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/</link>
	<description>Think.  It ain&#039;t illegal yet...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:11:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-96226</link>
		<dc:creator>The Weekly Carboholic: Climate disruption will disrupt volcanism too &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-96226</guid>
		<description>[...] Clearly, the EPA believes that it&#8217;s in accordance with the Clean Air Act, as does the California Air Resources Board, and the Center for Auto Safety’s Safe Climate Campaign. However, the president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, believes that this is just the beginning of carbon emissions lawsuits. He&#8217;s probably correct, even though there have been a few lawsuits already relating to climate. But with the courts now involved, it&#8217;s fair to say that Arctic communities will be suing energy companies, developing nations will be suing developed nations, and it&#8217;s all going to get a lot uglier before things improve. And at least one major insurer/reinsurer believes that a wave of litigation is inevitable. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Clearly, the EPA believes that it&#8217;s in accordance with the Clean Air Act, as does the California Air Resources Board, and the Center for Auto Safety’s Safe Climate Campaign. However, the president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, believes that this is just the beginning of carbon emissions lawsuits. He&#8217;s probably correct, even though there have been a few lawsuits already relating to climate. But with the courts now involved, it&#8217;s fair to say that Arctic communities will be suing energy companies, developing nations will be suing developed nations, and it&#8217;s all going to get a lot uglier before things improve. And at least one major insurer/reinsurer believes that a wave of litigation is inevitable. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milloy&#8217;s latest climate op-ed riddled with errors &#124; Scholars and Rogues</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-96154</link>
		<dc:creator>Milloy&#8217;s latest climate op-ed riddled with errors &#124; Scholars and Rogues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 22:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-96154</guid>
		<description>[...] CO2 emissions&#8221; are causing harm, start by researching the effect of ocean acidification on marine [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] CO2 emissions&#8221; are causing harm, start by researching the effect of ocean acidification on marine [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russ Wellen</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-66463</link>
		<dc:creator>Russ Wellen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-66463</guid>
		<description>I hadn&#039;t heard about that Greenpeace ruling before. The class-action suits sound promising.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hadn&#8217;t heard about that Greenpeace ruling before. The class-action suits sound promising.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Angliss</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-66459</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Angliss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-66459</guid>
		<description>Judy, Judy, Judy...

First, the IPCC sea level rise estimates were out of date before they were even published.  And suggesting that the NIPCC document is accurate regarding climate disruption is only slightly better than claiming that the Satanic Bible is accurate regarding the teachings of Jesus - there&#039;s just enough facts to make it look reasonable, but the inaccuracies, lies, and manipulations far outweigh the scattered facts.

So here&#039;s some real numbers on sea level rise that are more recent than the IPCC AR4 estimates.  First, &lt;a href=&quot;http://sealevel.colorado.edu/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;satellite altimitry shows an increase of 3.2 mm +/- 0.4mm per year&lt;/a&gt;, which works out to about 30 cm by 2100  This is within the range predicted by the IPCC.  Except that all models anticipate an &lt;em&gt;increase&lt;/em&gt; in the rate of sea level rise, and there&#039;s new data about ice melt that wasn&#039;t included in the IPCC models.  Updated models that include Greenland and West Antarctic melting boost that to between 0.7 and 1.6 m (based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.springerlink.com/content/527178062596k202/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;one paper&lt;/a&gt;) and another researcher finds that 50 cm is probably the minimum level we&#039;ll observe by 2100.

Ultimately, though, whether corals will survive sea level rise or ocean acidification depends on how much the oceans change and how quickly.  After all, coral can only grow towards the surface so quickly, and while coral can certainly adapt to match new environments, adaptation takes time.  The last time that the oceans acidified this fast was the end of the Cretaceous period, and it was marked by a mass extinction where 30% of identified marine species went extinct.  That&#039;s not exactly a change we want to emulate.

Of far greater concern than corals in particular is the ocean food chain in general, because while acidification will &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/04/the-weekly-carboholic-pew-poll-results-curious/#ocean
&quot;&gt;probably result in more oceanic dead zones&lt;/a&gt; as the amount of CO2 goes up and the amount of oxygen falls, if you &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/#plankton&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;kill off the plankton and pteropods that use carbonate to make their shells, then you kill off the food supply for the vast majority of higher organisms&lt;/a&gt; (like mollusks, fish, and even marine mammals).  Of course, something will step in to take the place of the clams, salmon, and humpback whales - I hear jellyfish are doing great these days.

Something tells me I&#039;d rather eat a salmon than a jellyfish, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Judy, Judy, Judy&#8230;</p>
<p>First, the IPCC sea level rise estimates were out of date before they were even published.  And suggesting that the NIPCC document is accurate regarding climate disruption is only slightly better than claiming that the Satanic Bible is accurate regarding the teachings of Jesus &#8211; there&#8217;s just enough facts to make it look reasonable, but the inaccuracies, lies, and manipulations far outweigh the scattered facts.</p>
<p>So here&#8217;s some real numbers on sea level rise that are more recent than the IPCC AR4 estimates.  First, <a href="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/" rel="nofollow">satellite altimitry shows an increase of 3.2 mm +/- 0.4mm per year</a>, which works out to about 30 cm by 2100  This is within the range predicted by the IPCC.  Except that all models anticipate an <em>increase</em> in the rate of sea level rise, and there&#8217;s new data about ice melt that wasn&#8217;t included in the IPCC models.  Updated models that include Greenland and West Antarctic melting boost that to between 0.7 and 1.6 m (based on <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/527178062596k202/" rel="nofollow">one paper</a>) and another researcher finds that 50 cm is probably the minimum level we&#8217;ll observe by 2100.</p>
<p>Ultimately, though, whether corals will survive sea level rise or ocean acidification depends on how much the oceans change and how quickly.  After all, coral can only grow towards the surface so quickly, and while coral can certainly adapt to match new environments, adaptation takes time.  The last time that the oceans acidified this fast was the end of the Cretaceous period, and it was marked by a mass extinction where 30% of identified marine species went extinct.  That&#8217;s not exactly a change we want to emulate.</p>
<p>Of far greater concern than corals in particular is the ocean food chain in general, because while acidification will <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/02/04/the-weekly-carboholic-pew-poll-results-curious/#ocean<br />
">probably result in more oceanic dead zones</a> as the amount of CO2 goes up and the amount of oxygen falls, if you <a href="http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/03/11/the-weekly-carboholic-ipcc-2007-conclusions-were-too-conservative/#plankton" rel="nofollow">kill off the plankton and pteropods that use carbonate to make their shells, then you kill off the food supply for the vast majority of higher organisms</a> (like mollusks, fish, and even marine mammals).  Of course, something will step in to take the place of the clams, salmon, and humpback whales &#8211; I hear jellyfish are doing great these days.</p>
<p>Something tells me I&#8217;d rather eat a salmon than a jellyfish, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lex</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-66453</link>
		<dc:creator>Lex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-66453</guid>
		<description>One has to admire the ability of the Capitol Crusaders to screw over their constituents for the sake of special interests while making the whole thing seem like they&#039;re helping the nation/planet/people.  How thankful i should be that i get to pay for the R&amp;D on a technology that is unproven and expensive so that it won&#039;t affect the bottom line of the companies that will benefit directly from the technology.

Boy, i heart my congressional representation almost as i heart trolls like Judy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One has to admire the ability of the Capitol Crusaders to screw over their constituents for the sake of special interests while making the whole thing seem like they&#8217;re helping the nation/planet/people.  How thankful i should be that i get to pay for the R&amp;D on a technology that is unproven and expensive so that it won&#8217;t affect the bottom line of the companies that will benefit directly from the technology.</p>
<p>Boy, i heart my congressional representation almost as i heart trolls like Judy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Judy Cross</title>
		<link>http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/06/03/the-weekly-carboholic-aces-fossil-fuel-industry-pork/comment-page-1/#comment-66443</link>
		<dc:creator>Judy Cross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=9535#comment-66443</guid>
		<description>* The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time-when temperatures were as much as 10̊-15̊C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were two to seven times higher than they are currently-provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment.

    * The 18- to 59-cm warming-induced sea-level rise that is predicted for the coming century by the IPCC falls well within the range (2 to 6 mm per year) of typical coral vertical extension rates, which exhibited a modal value of 7 to 8 mm per year during the Holocene and can be more than double that value in certain branching corals. Rising sea levels should therefore present no difficulties for coral reefs.

    * The rising CO2 content of the atmosphere may induce very small changes in the well-buffered ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO2 enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon. Real-world observations indicate that elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures are having a positive effect on most corals.
http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter8.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>* The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time-when temperatures were as much as 10̊-15̊C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were two to seven times higher than they are currently-provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment.</p>
<p>    * The 18- to 59-cm warming-induced sea-level rise that is predicted for the coming century by the IPCC falls well within the range (2 to 6 mm per year) of typical coral vertical extension rates, which exhibited a modal value of 7 to 8 mm per year during the Holocene and can be more than double that value in certain branching corals. Rising sea levels should therefore present no difficulties for coral reefs.</p>
<p>    * The rising CO2 content of the atmosphere may induce very small changes in the well-buffered ocean chemistry (pH) that could slightly reduce coral calcification rates; but potential positive effects of hydrospheric CO2 enrichment may more than compensate for this modest negative phenomenon. Real-world observations indicate that elevated CO2 and elevated temperatures are having a positive effect on most corals.<br />
<a href="http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter8.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter8.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

