9 replies to this topic

[Render]

Quote

BARACK OBAMA is certainly talking the talk on climate change - promising to put the fight against global warming at the heart of his second term. What's more surprising is that the US - historically, the world's biggest emitter - actually seems to be walking the walk. It is on track to meet Obama's 2009 pledge to cut US emissions by 17 per cent, from 2005 levels, by 2020. The target could even be exceeded, which may give a boost to the long-stalled international climate talks.
There's no realistic possibility of passing new laws to curb US greenhouse gas emissions - Republican control of the House of Representatives will see to that. So some pundits were scratching their heads at Obama's climate pledge in last week's inaugural address. But independent analyses paint an upbeat picture of the progress he can make simply by using existing laws.

http://www.newscient...te-promise.html

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

There, take that, cynics! He promises, see, and he delivers!

[questionmark]

Let me guess? By turning down the thermostats in the WH by 2 degrees?

[TheLastLazyGun]

And still the alarmists continue, completely ignoring the facts and figures which show they are wrong in the other threads.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I wish we could get some facts & figures that are completely (carbon?) neutral and uninfluenced by bias one way or the other, but everything seems to have some agenda behind it.

[Br Cornelius]

TheLastLazyGun, on 31 January 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

And still the alarmists continue, completely ignoring the facts and figures which show they are wrong in the other threads.

You mean the threads which show that global warming has continued uninterrupted. If you can't refute the science - just deny it.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Lord Vetinari, on 31 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I wish we could get some facts & figures that are completely (carbon?) neutral and uninfluenced by bias one way or the other, but everything seems to have some agenda behind it.

Here's a start:
NCDC Station Data Address:
http://www7.ncdc.noa...D82A?_page=0

Storm Data address is:
http://www7.ncdc.noa.../IPS/sd/sd.html

PDSI address is:
http://www1.ncdc.noa...rd964x.pdsi.txt

Global Temperature Anomalies address is:
http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

Hadley-Crutcher 3 address is:
http://www.cru.uea.a...hadcrut3ggl.txt

Keeling's (CO2) curve is available on-line, too, but I don't have the address just now.

GTA and HadCrut3 are global averages.  The others are for the US.  You will have to do your own analyses.  If you lack the time or the know-how, you will have to use somebody else's.

If you want, you can use the NCDC data to track the information back to the individual station.  It takes three file drawers to hold the printouts for the State of Arkansas (And at that, I edited out a lot of irrelevant stuff.), so you'll have a lot of work ahead.  But there's history in those reports, too.  The early editions for Oklahoma are entitled:  "Oklahoma and the Indian Nations."  You'll learn a lot about early frosts damaging fruit crops and rainstorms that drown settlers, down to the names of individuals.

OR:  you can go to peer-reviewed journals.  They're pretty technical and usually require a good background in the subject just to understand what they're saying.  The scientific concepts, themselves, are usually pretty simple, but the data analysis that backs them up can be nightmarish material.

Anyway, it's out there.  All you have to do is read it.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 31 January 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Render]

questionmark, on 31 January 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

Let me guess? By turning down the thermostats in the WH by 2 degrees?

It's all in the article yanno...

Quote

But independent analyses paint an upbeat picture of the progress he can make simply by using existing laws.
But the biggest contribution comes from regulations under the Clean Air Act, including vehicle fuel economy standards that are already in place. Controls on emissions from power plants that are expected from the US Environmental Protection Agency make up the rest (see diagram). Given all this, RFF estimates that the US could cut emissions by 16.3 per cent by 2020.
"The 2020 target does seem to be in reach," agrees Kevin Kennedy, who heads the US climate change initiative at World Resources Institute, also in Washington DC.
According to Woerman, about two-thirds of the cuts outlined in the RFF report are already "baked-in". And emissions could be pushed down further still if the EPA is aggressive in regulating existing US power plants.
The RFF report assumed that the EPA would demand modest efficiency improvements for each type of plant. But the agency could get stronger cuts by setting a combined and more ambitious target for coal and gas-fired plants, and leave it to utilities and states to decide how to get there.
According to an analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), released in December, more aggressive policies like these could cut emissions from fossil fuel plants by 26 per cent, from 2005 levels, by 2020 - equivalent to an additional 10 per cent shaved off total US emissions.
Other options open to Obama include an aggressive phase-out of hydrofluorocarbons - refrigerants that are potent greenhouse gases - and plugging methane leaks (see "Fixing America's gas leak").

[AsteroidX]

Its a cover up and diversion for gun control. His gotta find his hearts and minds somewhere as many have bailed off the Obama train lately.

[Doug1o29]

AsteroidX, on 01 February 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Its a cover up and diversion for gun control. His gotta find his hearts and minds somewhere as many have bailed off the Obama train lately.

So many that his approval rating is at an all-time high.
Doug