An Inconvenient Lawsuit: Teenagers Take Global Warming to the Courts

The Atlantic ^ | May 9, 2012 | Katherine Ellison

[Twotone]

Alec Loorz turns 18 at the end of this month. While finishing high school and playing Ultimate Frisbee on weekends, he's also suing the federal government in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

The Ventura, California, teen and four other juvenile plaintiffs want government officials to do more to prevent the risks of climate change -- the dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions that scientists warn will threaten their generation absent a major turnabout in global energy policy. Specifically, the students are demanding that the U.S. government start reducing national emissions of carbon dioxide by at least six percent per year beginning in 2013.

[ChildOfThe60s]

If I, as a [natural born] US citizen, have no legal standing to demand proof of eligibility from Obama, this moron certainly has no standing to sue the US government over his mental illness.

He ought to be suing the UN for destroying his ability to think for himself.

I’d be embarrassed an 18 year old that stupid was my genetic offspring. He is the reason they make Trojans.

[DrC]

“Brainwashed, indoctrinated, dumb and stupid is no way to go through life, Alec.”

To a kid who apparently gave some thought to future threats hanging over his head, it’s rather astonishing he missed the one staring him straight in the face: the net present value of federal government’s unfunded liabilities for entitlements exceed $100 trillion, or more than $300,000 for every living American. That tab is going to be paid predominantly by Alec’s generation and his kids, not by his parents (who when they retire—assuming they are average income—will collect $3 in Medicare benefits for every dollar they paid into Medicare) or grandparents.

Alec: you’re being used as a cash cow for your elders. How come you’re not outraged about THAT?

[spawn44]

These are gore’s people. He has stuped so low he is brain washing kids, because NO ONE ELSE IS BUYING HIS CRAP

[TrueKnightGalahad]

The court should dismiss their suit on the basis of failure to mitigate by eliminating their personal CO2 emissions while breathing.

[palmer]

He went on to found an organization called Kids vs. Global Warming, and traveled the world, giving more than 200 speeches at schools and other venues to more than 100,000 people altogether

Emitting no carbon in his travels? Amazing!

[palmer]

The skeptics/realists know that this is a lagging indicator. CO2 is released after the liquid (ocean) is warmed.

The oceans used to do that. Without mankind there would be a 5-10 ppm rise in CO2 from the natural warming coming out of the Little Ice Age. That can be calculated from the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (above the ocean) and the temperature rise. Since CO2 has risen by about 100ppm the oceans have gone into reverse and are now absorbing about 1/2 of mankind's emissions each year.

Here's a paper http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/8576/1/LeQuere09.pdf showing the warming oceans are not emitting, they are absorbing. There are more many papers like this and they are generally correct.

[allmost]

I will reinstall adobe’s crap to read your PDF. Do you believe the Sun does not heat the Earth?

[Joan Kerrey]

want government officials to do more to prevent the risks of climate change — the dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions

Don’t forget, earthquakes.

[palmer]

Use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatra_PDF I never use Adobe products (except Flash on a Mac with Click-to-Flash which stops all Flash except what I want).

Yes, the sun varies and heat the earth more up through the 80's That heated the oceans which kept heating the atmosphere through the 90's. That was the main reason for the rise during that interval. But CO2 was the second reason and CO2 has been steadily rising the atmosphere mostly independent of ocean temperatures. IOW, when we get La Nina and cooler ocean temperatures on average, we still get a rise in atmospheric CO2 although less of one. But we also get less of a rise in CO2 during recession e.g. in 2008. So we really do control CO2 in the atmosphere

Another thing to consider is that the ocean absorbs the CO2 efficiently enough that once we stop producing CO2 (when we develop sufficient technology like nuclear fusion energy), the atmospheric levels will drop within decades (less than 40 years to get half way back to preindustrial).

[MCH]

Living proof as to why libs who WANT to have abortions should be allowed to - to reduce the chances of them spawning another generation of brain dead cretins like this kid and his buddies.

[allmost]

Are you denying the post #13 effect that you and your children can see as true?

[palmer]

There has been a 1 or 2 C rise in ocean temperatures over the last century, mostly as the result of coming out of the Little Ice Age. That would cause a 5 to 10 ppm rise in CO2. Instead we have seen a 110 ppm rise in CO2. There is clearly an effect from rising ocean temperatures but there is a bigger effect from manmade emissions.

The oceans no longer emit CO2 as they warm, they now absorb some of our extra CO2 although they absorb less of our extra than they would if they were not warming.

[palmer]

Take a warm and cold seltzer water (substitute soda or beer), give them a small shake (simulating ocean currents and convection), then open them. The warm one releases more CO2

Here's a specific answer: the CO2 partial pressure has increased. That would be like leaving the cap on the bottle. As long as there is CO2 at pressure above the ocean higher than the pressure within the ocean the CO2 will absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere. Here's the text from Wikipedia on Henry's Law: "Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16 K increase in temperature."

We have had about a 2K increase in ocean temperatures over the last century. That would lead to 2/16 or 1/8 of a doubling of partial pressure of CO2 above the ocean. That means from 280 ppm we would have had about 35 ppm in rise in partial pressure of CO2 (I was wrong when I said 5-10ppm).

[aruanan]

There has been a 1 or 2 C rise in ocean temperatures over the last century, mostly as the result of coming out of the Little Ice Age. That would cause a 5 to 10 ppm rise in CO2. Instead we have seen a 110 ppm rise in CO2. There is clearly an effect from rising ocean temperatures but there is a bigger effect from manmade emissions.

There has been a 0.7C rise in atmospheric temperatures since about 1850, though we're still considerably below the high of the Medieval warm period. We haven't had a rise of 110 ppm. The 280 ppm for the 19th century was cherry-picked. The average was somewhere between 300-340 ppm. We've gone up slightly since then and the increasing CO2 is coincident with stable (since 1998) and falling (since 2009 or so) atmospheric temperatures. Since 2009, there has been a global decrease of about 0.6C, almost as much as was gained through the three warming periods after 1880. The rise in atmospheric CO2 started before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Human contribution is a minor portion of the total increase. Its effects on temperature cannot be distinguished from background noise. Compared to annual fluctuations due to seasonal change, they are minuscule. Most of the effects of CO2 on atmospheric temperature is over the first 100 ppm. The larger the amount, the increasingly smaller the effect by unit. We'd all be better off with 600-800 ppm.

[aruanan]

The Ventura, California, teen and four other juvenile plaintiffs want government officials to do more to prevent the risks of climate change -- the dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions that scientists warn will threaten their generation absent a major turnabout in global energy policy.

Poor dumb effs. Major storm intensity and frequency have been on the decline over the past 60 or 70 years. Heat waves are less frequent and less intense than in the 1930/40s. Same for droughts. The sea level isn't rising and when it last was it was doing so at a decreasing rate. The only major food-supply disruptions are those that have been caused by political a-holes mandating biofuels and burning food instead of eating it.

[palmer]

The average was somewhere between 300-340 ppm.

The only source I know about for those measurements is Miskowski (sp?) it is generally agreed that his measurements were not indicative of the global CO2 but represent mostly elevated CO2 around cities. Here's a better source for CO2 measurements: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/24/atmospheric-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide-feedback-or-equilibrium/ and there are many more like that.

[allmost]

The measurements are proven bunk. Yet you believe them. Take them in like Gospel. Damn dude. You spread that to others?

[aruanan]

The only source I know about for those measurements is Miskowski (sp?) it is generally agreed that his measurements were not indicative of the global CO2 but represent mostly elevated CO2 around cities.

Throughout the 19th century there many thousands of CO2 measurements taken around the world.

[aruanan]

The only source I know about for those measurements is Miskowski (sp?) it is generally agreed that his measurements were not indicative of the global CO2 but represent mostly elevated CO2 around cities.

Throughout the 19th century there were many thousands of CO2 measurements taken around the world.

[palmer]

Here's a better thread with a discussion of CO2 measurements http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/ I was thinking of Jaworowski not the name I guessed above. But the measurements you are referring to are the Beck measurements. Those are discussed here: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html