President Obama promised to make "meaningful progress" on the issue of climate change in the State of the Union Address last night.
Since his reelection, Obama has vowed to take charge on the issue of climate change in his second term. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms," he said in his inaugural address in January. "The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it."
In his address to Congress last night, he expanded on those remarks, both in calls for legislation and in promises of executive action. His goal is to reduce the energy wasted in homes and businesses by half within 20 years. He promised federal support to states that create jobs through the construction of energy-efficient buildings.
Obama also urged Congress to pass a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change. Of course, that's a tall order in this volatile political climate, so he followed up with a pledge to wield his executive power to combat climate change. (You can see Speaker of the House John Boehner's eye-roll response over at the Atlantic Wire.)
"I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy," Obama said.
We must go "all-in on clean energy," he continued, generating more wind energy and lowering costs for solar energy. He promised to speed up new oil and gas permits and clear red tape for natural-gas production. And he encouraged Congress to support research and technology to make natural gas more environmentally friendly.
He proposed an "Energy Security Trust" funded by oil and gas royalty revenues that the government collects from oil and gas leases on federal land and offshore drilling. According to The New York Times, that revenue is estimated to reach $150 billion in the next decade, depending on market prices and production. The trust would divert that funding into the research and development of alternative fuel sources to get cars and trucks off oil.
HAVE A QUESTION? SUBMIT IT!
Got questions about how all of this is going to work? Our own senior editor Paul Adams will be at the White House later today conducting a live-streamed Q&A with Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Policy, and we want your input.
Oh no! If he's as serious about climate change as he was about fixing the economy, we might as well just off ourselves today.
First, AGW is bogus (CO2 has increased from being 0.03% of the atmosphere to being 0.04%. Not really a game-changer.) Second, if it WERE real, China would be the place to make changes. They are the highest producer of CO2 and they cause REAL damage to the environment with all the pollution they spew out. We could cut our CO2 emissions to 0, and if there was going to be a run-away apocalyptic extreme hot cold front (what are we expecting now that we're calling it climate change?) that freeze-broils everything on Earth, it's still going to happen.
When it all comes down to it, we're doing pretty good as a country. We have the 2nd highest TOTAL output of CO2 in the world, but if you look at per capita, we're pretty far down on the list putting out 1/3 the per captia emissions as Qatar and if you look at emissions by land mass, we're far behind the leaders Japan and Korea which put out 6 and 8 times as much as we do respectively.
The Reefer Madness of our Climate Change War is to Obama what the Iraq War was to Bush, but at least Bush didn't issue CO2 death threats from an exaggerated climate crisis to my kids and billions of others. Let's leave the fear mongering to the neocons and start being real progressives who don't love a planet with fear and fear alone. Remove the CO2 and continue stewardship anew!
The Earth is cooling as we speak.
So climate change is a non issue.
Anyone can understand this even if their IQ is only 116... like Obama.
Obama is serious about circumventing the checks and balances of congress and the constitution to make some serious money for him and his donors by taxing the air. Serious money to be made in promoting and taxing for man made "climate change". Cant call it global warming because that has been proven to be false.
Why must the left be so foolish in their attempts to push the Green Agenda. Conservation is natural to conservatives the second you take away the agenda for governmental usurpation.
Opt1 - We are going to use AGW as a reason to restrict energy developement. Fail.
Opt2 - We are delaying energy development in the US, so that our domestic supply is intact once the Middle East hits peak oil. Success.
Opt1 - We are going to regulate CO2 production to stop AGW despite the cost to buisness. Fail.
Opt2 - Due to the cost of air and water pollution to the taxpayer, we are going to seek a ballance in which buisness is successful while minimizing the cost to the public. Success.
Opt1 - We are going to dump taxpayer money into a handful solar companies in hopes that they can become competitive in the energy market, rather than driving other solar companies out of the market or outsourcing to China. Fail.
Opt2 - We are going to offer large sums of prize money to whatever company can create a solar panal at X cost per mgwph. Success.
The problem is not the goals - we all want a great environment. The problem is in the causation (latest "ecocrisis") and means (government power grab).
Basic Editor-101 question, @author-Shaunacy, Robot, or any Popsci editor:
As an intern or submitting author, does PopSci allow you, the reporter, to pick the headline of your stories or do editors generally "juice em up" without the your consent?
In other words, are PopSci reporters responsible for their entire article, headlines & all?
Truly curious. Anyone know?
I guess wasting $1 billion on failed "green energy" enterprises didn't teach Obama anything. Let's do it again!
Ironic that he grew up in Chicago where several Nobel-Prize-winning economists like Milton Friedman worked. Maybe Obama could take an online course in economics from the University of Chicago so he can understand how it all works....
And if being an economic rookie wasn't bad enough, he boldly declares his ineptitude at science. This statement says it all:
"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms."
So many fallacies in once sentence. Awesome!
The "overwhelming judgement of science" says the human signal in long term global warming (which has been going on cyclically for hundreds of thousands of years) is still difficult to differentiate from the natural signal. If there is a human contribution, it is negligible, not statistically significant, or so far undetected. However, the overwhelming consensus of opinion among (self-selection biased) "climate scientists" is that humans are causing warming. But that's not science, that's opinion...and politics.
Raging fires have nothing to do with warming. They are the result of drought or poor land management. And there is no evidence that last year's wildfires were any larger or damaging than others in the last century.
Drought has nothing to do with warming. In fact, most warming models (if you want to believe them) predict more moisture; i.e., rainfall. Again, there is no evidence that recent droughts are any more devastating or widespread than others in the last century.
More powerful storms have nothing to do with warming. There is (again) no evidence that storms are more powerful or frequent than others in the last century.
For the uninformed, the power of a storm is directly related to the DIFFERENCE in temperature of the atmosphere and the underlying land or ocean surface and the amount of water vapor in the air. Warm air (high pressure) over warm water is fairly stable, while cool air (low pressure) over warm water is unstable. If the atmosphere warms and the oceans and land stay the same temperature, storms will become LESS violent. If the atmosphere and the oceans and land warm at about the same rate--as global warmists assert--there will be no difference in the violence or frequency of storms; which, incidentally, is what the data actually shows.
In once sentence, Obama preys on the unsubstantiated fears of the uninformed to further promote his already proven failure of an agenda. We've seen the the results of 4 years of his misguided policies and it's ugly. Four more years will do nothing except convince more people that he's a few fries short of a Happy Meal. But hey, that's what you get when you elect a rookie with no executive experience in government or the private sector.
Whaling has been opposed by the United States government for decades. However, this foreign policy which has remained consistent across party lines is currently being undermined by Japan, Iceland, and Norway. These countries purposely defy the decisions of the International Whaling Commission and continue to kill endangered and protected whales.
The Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act was enacted in 1971 to conserve Atlantic salmon. The Pelly Amendment grants the President discretion to prohibit the importation of fish or fish products originating in a country that is diminishing the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program. The Packwood-Magnuson Amendment of 1979, an amendment to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), allows the President to impose trade sanctions pursuant to the Pelly Amendment if a country is diminishing the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
Ronald Reagan enacted economic sanctions against Japan for whaling in 1988. However, the Obama administration has only offered a 'diplomatic' response to Iceland.
Right now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing a case brought by the same group responsible for the whaling Reagan condemned in 1988. The poachers are literally using U.S. courts to undermine U.S. foreign policy by seeking an injunction against protesters.
And in a recent interview the Icelander responsible for destroying hundreds of endangered fin whales has announced he will literally use whale oil to fuel the ships for killing more endangered whales (also to export mass produced canned whale meat to Japan).
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed in the USA in 1946. The U.S. government has opposed whaling and promoted conservation of whales for decades -- including playing an influential role in the establishment of a moratorium on commercial whaling (which Iceland, Norway, and Japan defy).
Why won't the Obama administration at least enforce existing U.S. laws and take a more aggressive stand against commercial whaling?
Ask the president why we haven't gotten rid of the penny.
Cyback of Prexus What a bunch of morons, and why are you commenting in a science magazine IF YOU DON'T believe in what scientist say? And as or the amount of co2 in the atmosphere it does not take a lot to change the climate, only say 50 million tons a year, and we put that out with raising cattle. If you don't know what you are talking about then stfu.
I'm no climate scientist but I do know that most climate scientist are believing the climate is changing in a bad way. Yes there are scientist claiming that this isn't happening but they are a minority. Anyone saying anything else should log out from Google and search around some.
There are many reasons wanting people not to believe global warming. Way fewer reasons to want the other way around.
Most of the world are trying to do something about this. US not so much, China not so much.
-I dont want to live on this planet anymore
Cyback of Prexus
Scripps CO2 Data - Mauna Loa Observatory
This page presents data for atmospheric CO2 measurements by the Scripps CO2 Program at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Starting March 1958, the Scripps Mauna Loa data is the longest-runing, high-precision instrument record for atmospheric CO2.
About the Scripps CO2 Program
The Scripps CO2 program was initiated in 1956 by Charles David Keeling who directed the program until he died in 2005. The program is now operated by Ralph F. Keeling who also runs the Scripps O2 Program that measures atmospheric oxygen and argon. Both programs are based at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego (La Jolla) California.
Released January 3, 2013:
Scripps CO2 Data Scripps CO2 Data Data reposted by CO2Now.org
Scripps Source CO2 Data (CSV) | Scripps CO2 Program
Scripps CO2 Program Home Page | Scripps CO2 Program
NOAA CO2 Data | CO2Now.org
Earth's CO2 Home Page
Atmospheric CO2 for January 2013
Preliminary data dated February 5, 2013
(Mauna Loa Observatory: NOAA-ESRL)
CO2 Data Set:
Original NOAA data file dated Tuesday, January 5, 2012
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
Why is CO2 significant?
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change. To see whether enough is being done at the moment to solve these global problems, there is no single indicator as complete and current as the monthly updates for atmospheric CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.
What is the current trend?
The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing at an accelerating rate from decade to decade. The latest atmospheric CO2 data is consistent with a continuation of this long-standing trend.
What level is safe?
The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988.
Current Data for Atmospheric CO2
The world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is measured at the Mauna Loa Observatoy in Hawaii. Measurements are made and reported independently by two scientific institutions: Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Monthly data is posted below.
Mauna Loa CO2 Data Sets:
NOAA CO2 Data
Scripps CO2 Data
NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 Data
NOAA release date for monthly CO2 data:
February 5, 2013
Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps / NOAA / ESRL)
Monthly Mean CO2 Concentrations (ppm)
Since March 1958
The monthly MLO data set is reposted by CO2Now.org in 2 formats:
NOAA CO2 Data for the Mauna Loa Observatory PDF Version
Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2
Source data published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Mauna Loa Annual Mean CO2
Source data published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
At CO2Now.org, data for March 1958 - April 1974 was obtained by Charles David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps). Data for CO2 since May 1974 was obtained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Scripps Institution of Oceanography also maintains a CO2 monitoring program at the Mauna Loa Observatory. Click here to access the Scripps data for the Mauna Loa Observatory.
Monthly mean CO2 concentrations are determined from daily averages for the number of CO2 molecules in every one million molecules of dried air (water vapor removed). Annual mean CO2 concentrations are the arithmetic mean of the monthly averages for the year. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expressed as parts per million (ppm).
NOAA data published within the past year is preliminary and subject to change by NOAA due to its recalibration of the reference gas mixture used or other quality control procedures. In some cases, data from earlier years may be changed for the same reasons. Usually, these changes are minor. See the NOAA change log and notes that was started in August 2008 to keep a public record of the adjustments and reasons for the adjustments.
All data in this table is republished from the most current data available from NOAA. Data is republished independently by Pro Oxygen at CO2Now.org to make it easier for people to see the latest atmospheric CO2 data and trend information. A delay of 4 to 24 hours typically occurs between the release of monthly data by NOAA and the publication of updates at CO2Now.org. The accuracy of republished data can be checked by reviewing the source data. In the event that a publication error is detected, please send details to email"at"co2now.org.
EarthPolicy.org | Annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 1,000 AD to 2007
NCDC NOAA | Vostock Ice Core CO2 Data
CO2Now | Climate science data sources
CO2 Acceleration | CO2Now.org
Mauna Loa Science and Wonder | CO2Now.org
The CO2Now Climate Sheet
Data current as of February 5, 2013
Climate Sheet posts the world’s most current and important planetary data and targets – together in one place from leading global sources. The CO2Now Climate Sheet enumerates the chain of causes that are driving humanity’s largest environmental crises – global warming, climate change and ocean acidification. It also sets out key scientific markers for a stable climate system.
Global CO2 Board
The Most Current CO2 Data on Earth
Atmospheric CO2 | Mauna Loa Observatory
NOAA-ESRL | Data available since 1974
Scripps CO2 Program | Data available since 1958
Period Latest Data Comparison Source
02/3 - 9 2013 396.69 ppm 02/ 3 - 9 2012 392.16 ppm NOAA-ESRL
02/ 3 - 9 2011 391.62 ppm NOAA-ESRL
Annual Data | Atmospheric CO2
The 2012 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 393.84 parts per million (ppm). The 2011 average is 391.65 ppm.
For the past decade (2003-2012) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year. The average for the prior decade (1993-2002) is 1.7 ppm per year. Annual data for 2012 was first posted January 3, 2013, by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the United States.
Since the 1958 start of precision CO2 measurements in the atmosphere, the annual mean concentration of CO2 has only increased from one year to the next. The CO2 data below provide a simple view of the annual trend.
Do we see a trend here those idiots that think human do not affect the planet, or will you continue to be in denial and stay moronic?
People are ignorant. The media encourages a common misconception that global warming implies warmer temperatures throughout the planet. This is false. It's called climate change. Global warming is a phrase for the ignorant. Look things up yourself. Fox News, CNN, even PopSci, are all biased. Read everything, even things you don't agree with. Instead of preaching to you though, I'll just tell you why you're wrong. Some of you at least. What you hear on the news and stuff are people telling you that snowstorms are proof that global temperature is dropping. This is a false statement. It does not look beyond observation. The reason you have temperatures drop in certain areas is because when you have warmer weather in places, wind patterns change. There are different air pressures, different air temperatures, different wind speeds, etc. This would lead to cold fronts hitting places like Boston harder, since the weather is exacerbated by climate change. So warmer weather because of a dying ozone layer causes colder weather in other places. Stop denying climate change. It exists and we have to do something about it. To deny it is irresponsible.
The amount of scientific illiteracy (i.e., "anthrogenic climate change is a hoax!") in this thread is disappointing. I wonder why people who distrust science would be interested in a source called "popular science" in the first place.
Cyback of Prexus I made a slight error when I said 50 million, that was supposed to be 50 billion tons.
Wait a second... if belching bovines and manure piles are having such a devastating effect on our global temperature, shouldn't temperatures have plummeted in 1879 with the wholesale slaughter of 5 million buffalo? Can someone do the math on the greenhouse benefits of such a slaughter?
This could be a Global Warmer's V-Day.
i can solve climate change and make fuel for the future from dirty water. any water. hydrogen can be made from any source of water. even nuclear power plant water. useing high voltage and little amps. anything in the water will settle to the bottom of the container. hydrogen and oxygen are released (and other gasses). all of which can be mined or seperated, and used. the same with solids that seperate and settle to the bottem. hydrogen can be added to co2 and made into a hydrocarbon. hydrocarbon, means oil and gasoline. hydrogen can be directly burned in a engine. we can clean any water source and make a fuel. the only byproduct of burning hydrogen is water. clean clear water. this can be done now. not later. now. tell the president, to email me directly. i can fix the world
While correlation does not prove causation, weather now is more extreme and ridiculous than it has ever been at any point in recorded history, and that trend coincides with the rapid rise of Co2 levels in the atmosphere.
Those levels are not decreasing, they are increasing, anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or a troll.
You have to be a feeble-minded half-wit to accept President Obama's SOTU promises. If he was serious about climate change legislation, back in period from Jan. 2009 to Jan. 2011 when Democrats had complete control of Congress and the Presidency, he could have easily made the Kyoto Treaty as US law.
His threat to use executive orders is empty. He knows full well that using executive orders to bypass the legislative authority vested in Congress would make him subject to impeachment actions.
Yeah, what he said.
Yeah sure 5 million buffalo, but that was before we wiped out half the forest of the earth and then started dumping trash in the ocean . Hell the rain forest are disappearing as we speak, so no plants or algae and you have higher methane and co2. The tundra in Alaska is melting and releasing huge amounts of methane, why don't you try reading, maybe then you'll understand but I doubt it. I don't know why I care, hell I'll be gone before it gets really bad. But my kids and their kids will pay the price for your ignorance.
That's what I'm saying. Didn't the unfortunate destruction of 5 million buffalo help global cooling in a significant way? In your world you'd have to say yes, it did.
But in my world I think the trillions of plants and trees in the world had less to feed on and adapted accordingly.
What the western world puts out in co2 & methane is just a fart compared to the co2 & methane levels a single volcano can spew, now multiply that by thousands of volcanoes worldwide.
No, we don't want the world to end. Our world & kids will be fine. :)
Cyback Believe what you will, but on the other hand, gas prices keep climbing, so even if climate change is a myth and 97% of the scientists are wrong, eventually the oil will run out. The price for a gallon of gas is nearly $4.00 a gallon and we will soon be paying $7.00 a gallon and it will keep going up. So finding an alternative source of energy would still be in our best interest.
There are still large populations of Bison living on the North American continent. Not tho mention the fact that there is currently a far greater acreage of the US covered by forest than there was 100 years ago, thanks mostly to the commercial timber industry.
Maybe you could also explain what happened to the large Woolly Mammoth population that existed in North America thousands of years ago. Were they wiped out by the climate change from prehistoric human use of fossil fuels?
Maybe not the use of fossil fuel, but some believe by humans. And extinctions can happen for a lot of reasons, some man made, some evolution.
until I saw the bank draft which said $8121, I be certain that my sister woz like truley taking home money in their spare time on their apple laptop.. there neighbor had bean doing this 4 only about thirteen months and by now took care of the morgage on their villa and bourt Lotus Esprit. this is where I went, ●❤● ℬuzz80.ℂOℳ ●❤●
Obama is serious about nothing except trying to figure out how he can manage a third term without going through Congress.