No. Too much of a reduction could actually be quite — to use their the warmers second favorite word (the first is “settled”) — catastrophic.

David Archibald, writing for Watts Up With That today, tells us that the relationship isn’t linear, it’s logarithmic:

The greenhouse gasses keep the Earth 30° C warmer than it would otherwise be without them in the atmosphere, so instead of the average surface temperature being -15° C, it is 15° C. Carbon dioxide contributes 10% of the effect so that is 3° C. The pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. So roughly, if the heating effect was a linear relationship, each 100 ppm contributes 1° C. With the atmospheric concentration rising by 2 ppm annually, it would go up by 100 ppm every 50 years and we would all fry as per the IPCC predictions.

But the relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. In 2006, Willis Eschenbach posted this graph [charts at WUWT] on Climate Audit showing the logarithmic heating effect of carbon dioxide relative to atmospheric concentration. I recast Willis’ first graph as a bar chart to make the concept easier to understand to the layman:

Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. One thing to bear in mind is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 got down to 180 ppm during the glacial periods of the ice age the Earth is currently in (the Holocene is an interglacial in the ice age that started three million years ago).

Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is much more to this article, so head over to WWUT and read it all. I perused the comments and see that not all readers seem so sure that this theory holds water. What’s your opinion?

An EPA press release states:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that 20 U.S. communities, including two Indian Tribes, will receive $7.8 million in grants for projects that will reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). The funds will help Climate Showcase Communities increase energy efficiency, saving consumers money and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

Ahem!

“These communities see the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and are working with EPA to fight back,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We’re working on innovative, win-win strategies that reduce greenhouse gases and cut energy bills for families and businesses — strategies that can be put in place to fight climate change in communities from Utah and Ohio to China and India.”

Giggle, giggle. Overwhelming evidence? Phil Jones isn’t even using that one anymore.

Preliminary calculations by the grant applicants estimate that by 2012 the projects will reduce about 135,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually—equivalent to the emissions from 25,000 passenger vehicles or 12,000 homes and save more than $4.5 million per year in energy costs. Several projects are expected to create or maintain jobs and provide green job training.

Sounds like this may stop global warming single-handedly! Or, they plan on nuking an entire mid-sized town someplace in the midwest.

…..and if that’s not enough….they plan on throwing more money out the window!

EPA will monitor the progress of grant recipients and will post quarterly updates about each recipient online. An additional $2.2 million is still under review and is expected to be awarded in the next few months to five additional local and tribal governments.

I think I’m sending a letter in that I am planning on not farting anymore and see if I can get some money to implement my plan…..a few million should do it…and my wife will be much happier..

An article in the New York Times Friday said the EPA is overstepping their bounds with their new finding about CO2 and are attempting to do an end run around Congress.  It is a blatant move that usurps Congressional powers, so blatant that even Democrats are stepping up to the plate to put an end to this.

Two top House Democrats introduced a measure yesterday aimed at blocking U.S. EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mirroring the controversial effort launched on the Senate side by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

The measure from Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Missouri’s Ike Skelton was also co-sponsored by Missouri Republican Jo Ann Emerson. Their resolution (pdf)aims to use the Congressional Review Act to effectively veto EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.

“When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it never gave EPA the explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of stopping global climate change,” Skelton said in a statement. “But, that is exactly what EPA has proposed to do.”

Democrats Travis Childers of Mississippi and Charlie Wilson of Ohio signed on as co-sponsors after the measure was introduced, Skelton spokesman William Chapman said.

But many observers say efforts to block EPA using the Congressional Review Act would face a tough battle clearing the Democratic-led Congress and would face a veto from President Obama.

This all sounds good, but the reality of the situation is you have a President who still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming and many Democrats in both the House and Senate who feel the same way:

“Right now, this is a symbolic act by these House members,” Weiss said. Even if they somehow got a vote in the House and cleared the Senate, the president would veto the measure, and proponents are not going to get the two-thirds majority needed, he added.

There are other moves afoot to stop the EPA:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) announced last week that he will introduce a more limited legislative plan that would delay EPA’s stationary source regulations for six to 12 months beyond what the agency is planning.

And in the House, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) has introduced a bill(pdf) to strip EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions unless it receives explicit authority to do so by Congress.

I sincerely hope that the Congress will awaken and see the EPA’s move for what it is, which is another power grab by a government agency.

I am happy to see that the MSM is starting to see there is a problem and starting to report on these things.

In Thursday’s American Thinker, Alan Siddons puts forth his proof that NASA has the greenhouse theory all wrong.

Insulated by an outer crust, the surface of the earth acquires nearly all of its heat from the sun. The only exit for this heat to take is through a door marked “Radiation.” And therein lies a tale…

From there he proceeds to build his case.

Source:  American Thinker

It’s claimed that, as the more pernicious greenhouse gas, the threat from methane is even worse than that from CO2. It’s like knowing that zombies are coming to get you and then seeing a flock of vampires circling above.

But, like much of climate science, what is known is far outweighed by what is unknown, and climate science is largely theoretical, and based on computer models that are little more than experimental test beds.

Having said that I can submit a piece of scientific research that casts doubt on claims that methane gas is responsible for past surges in heat on the planet. It says:

Analysis of Greenland ice led by Scripps researchers could allay fears about methane ‘burp’ accelerating current global warming trend

I note the lack of certainty, but there is not a shred of evidence to prove a contrary view.

An expansion of wetlands and not a large-scale melting of frozen methane deposits is the likely cause of a spike in atmospheric methane gas that took place some 11,600 years ago, according to an international research team led by Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

The finding is expected to come as a relief to scientists and climate watchers concerned that huge accelerations of global warming might have been touched off by methane melts in the past and could happen again now as the planet warms.

Note in this section that the methane release comes after a massive temperature change in a short space of time.

The burst of methane took place immediately after an abrupt transition between climatic periods known as the Younger Dryas and Preboreal. During this event, temperatures in Greenland rose 10° C (18° F) in 20 years. Methane levels over 150 years rose about 50 percent, from 500 parts per billion in air to 750 parts per billion.

They haven’t suggested why there was such a dramatic temperature rise, but you can be sure it wasn’t AGW as we weren’t around then. Skeptics don’t have all the answers, but the theory of AGW is so full of holes, we can be sure that they don’t either.

Source: scrippsnews.ucsd.edu

Based upon this UK Telegraph article I’d say this will be the new AGW Battle Cry: The Methane Time Bomb, aka the Al Queda of Climate.

Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas, which is as much as 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, appear to have risen significantly for the past three years running, scientists say.

To bastardize a quote from an old Martha and the Vandellas song: “It’s like an AGW heatwave burning in my heart….I can’t keep from crying….Tearing me apart!”

More melting of the Arctic ice caused by accelerating warming would release further gases, setting off a “feedback” mechanism which could send climate change spinning out of control.

I have to ask what warming, since it’s been cooling the past 15 years, but they can’t admit it, so now they have to have a conference:

The new figures will be disclosed this morning at the start of a two-day conference on greenhouse gases at the Royal Society in London. Professor Euan Nisbet, of Royal Holloway College of the University of London, and Dr Ed Dlugokencky of the Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder Colorado, will set out their findings in a presentation on “Global atmospheric methane in 2010: budget, changes and dangers