Obama Instructs Federal Government to Reduce Pollution, 'Lead by Example'

You seem to have missed out on the fact the President of the United States has international duties.

At least he isn't jetting back and forth to his Texas ranch every second weekend like the last one.

Posted by: tierra | Oct 7, 2009 12:20:56 PM

At least he was not being a hypocrit saying we should reduce greenhouse gasses while making all the trips. I know the president has to make some trips but if the environment is such a world concern why don't they pick up the damn phone and call each other?

"But don't tell us that we should lead by example when you are jet setting around the world"
___________________________________

You seem to have missed out on the fact the President of the United States has international duties.

At least he isn't jetting back and forth to his Texas ranch every second weekend like the last one.

“lead by example” RIGHT OK OBAMA.
How bought parking that damn 747 and helicopter for a little while. Stay at the office maybe. But don't tell us that we should lead by example when you are jet setting around the world. Hey have you heard about GOTO meeting.com. Might save the environment. Maybe even use the secure line telephone on that oval thingy in your house.

Just once I'd like the Global Warming diciples to explain to me how rising CO2 levels can cause the temperature to go up when the data states that on average the CO2 levels rise 800 years after warming begins.That's the data,folks-warming BEFORE rising CO2 levels.Isn't that the same as saying that a clap of thunder causes the bolt of lighting that precedes it?

Posted by: Nephron | Oct 6, 2009 11:44:12 PM

Surely you've read the unpacking of the whole "carbon dioxide doesn't lead, it lags" argument. I know Gore started all this (aaaargh!) but the short answer (short for me, lol, which I realize isn't very short) is that before human intervention, changes in CO2 lagged temperature rises. However, CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans. This feedback system is confirmed by the CO2 record - in the past, the amplifying effect of CO2 feedback enabled warming to spread across the globe and take the planet out of the ice age. So, you're talking about very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. While the carbon dioxide didn't cause the first 800 years of warming, it likely caused or greatly contributed to the next 4200 years of warming.

The notion that CO2 lags and amplifies temperature was predicted in 1990 in a paper by Claude Lorius and James Hansen. It wasn't a shocker for the Global Warming experts and community.

My favorite response to this Q is Deltoid's:

"CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. "

See also my forthcoming paper: Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".

Naysayers? I prefer rationalist, critical thinker, professional engineer, realist, one who demands excellence.

The burden of proof is always on the one who is positing a theory. Always.

***

Of course you do. But it would be nice if you could get to arguments outside what we've come to know as denialese. It sounds like you at least acknowledge "global warming" as evidenced by the actual surface temperature record and other measurements and indicators such as ice core analyses, satellite data, sea ice melt, sea level rise, glacial melt observations, permafrost melt, and so on.

As to Skip's point, science is a language of probablity, yes? Human knowledge is constantly evolving. In general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things-- as we've seen, IMO, with the greenhouse effect theory which is over 100 years old. Time has continued to strengthen and refine the groundbreaking conclusions first drawn in 1896 regarding anthropogenic global warming. Every major institute---GISS, NOAA, NAS, SOCC, EPA, RS, AGU, AIP, NCAR,AMS, CMOS, Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,Chinese Academy of Sciences, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Academié des Sciences (France), Royal Society (United Kingdom),Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Society of Canada, and so on-- that deals with climate-related science is saying that AGW is, indeed, real and dangerous and , although I'll grant that they put forth their findings with "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. "Thousands of scientists" is no canard. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. As I've said before there are many things we don’t know about global warming but there are also many of things we don’t know about cancer and other diseases. I’ll take the science we have for now. If you're wrong, I don't want my kids and their kids and their kids to pay for your mistake. And if those of us who go with the science are wrong, it's really not that big of a deal because we need to invest in alternative fuels anyway-- for national security, if nothing else. And clean air and a healthy environment is a wonderful thing for us and future generations :>)

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about carbon dioxide. Why wouldn't a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas affect the global temperature? Sure, the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, but why exactly wouldn't it be intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? Where is the evidence of or theory regarding some other natural force, or whatever it is you postulate is causing climate change, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages? Or do you believe that Steve McIntyre's recent posting on Yamal calls warming at all into question-- and that the climate change fluctuations are normal? I realize there is a lot of excitement among climate skeptics about his finding, but I've seen the broken hockey stick thing debunked so many times, and I'll admit I'm not enough of a science and statistics geek to weed through all of it on my own ( I tried and its pretty tedious.) I'd like to see the scientific community weigh in. Even then, I'd still ask why wouldn't a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas affect the global temperature? And also, I'd ask what do we have to lose, really, by investing in alternative energy sources and practices which help keep the environment healthy? If the skeptics and deniers are wrong the stakes are extremely high.

Just once I'd like the Global Warming diciples to explain to me how rising CO2 levels can cause the temperature to go up when the data states that on average the CO2 levels rise 800 years after warming begins.That's the data,folks-warming BEFORE rising CO2 levels.Isn't that the same as saying that a clap of thunder causes the bolt of lighting that precedes it?

Obama makes so many speeches that he is leaving his "carbon footprint" all over the world creating enough gas to supply the state of California for 4 years!! Practice what you preach all right!!

How convenient for the naysayers to demand conclusive evidence which cannot ever be provided. Are we supposed to find an identical planet to Earth to use as a control for testing purposes? We believe the evidence IS conclusive enough to make a judgment call on it.

Posted by: Skip | Oct 6, 2009 3:09:09 PM
--------------

Naysayers? I prefer rationalist, critical thinker, professional engineer, realist, one who demands excellence.

The burden of proof is always on the one who is positing a theory. Always. You may believe the evidence to date is conclusive but not many scientists do. Please spare me the "thousands of scientists" canard.

"Plants require CO2 to survive and create the oxygen we need."

And if we were to immediately cease all synthetic production of CO2 the plants would still have plenty without us.

"The principal constituents of the atmosphere of Earth are nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent). The atmospheric gases in the remaining 1 percent are argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.03 percent)"

That's carbon dioxide 0.03% and rising rapidly.

"All we can say is there is no conclusive evidence to state today's warming is predominantly man-made, unprecedented or catastrophic."

How convenient for the naysayers to demand conclusive evidence which cannot ever be provided. Are we supposed to find an identical planet to Earth to use as a control for testing purposes? We believe the evidence IS conclusive enough to make a judgment call on it.

YO:"maybe you can do an experiment for us, remember Tom Ridge's suggestion about how to protect from bio-weapons attacks...

build yourself a plastic sheeting cubicle, seal with duct tape to make it air tight, relax,..then wait about 6 hours, and let us know whether CO2 had any adverse pollutant type effects.."

I tried it and it was quite fun. It only took a few minutes until I passed out from oxygen deprivation. In this lively experiment I increased the concentration of CO2 in my immediate surroundings from 387 parts per million to about 100,000 parts per million, an increase of more than 25,000%! Even so CO2 had no adverse "pollutant type" effects, rather a lack of oxygen caused this mammal to shut down for a time. Not surprising.

What's your point again? Are you suggesting if we don't stop driving our cars we'll all pass out from oxygen deprivation? That's just as silly as suggesting an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (an increase of ~40%) will cause ice sheets to slide into the ocean. No one knows what the true radiative forcing of doubling atmospheric CO2 is (we know it is limited, however), nor does anyone know how the rest of the incredibly complex climate system will react. All we can say is there is no conclusive evidence to state today's warming is predominantly man-made, unprecedented or catastrophic.

Lastly, look up Ken Briffa Yamal Series for an education on how paleoclimatogists create hockey stick shaped temperature graphs.

Does that mean Obama will suspend his campaign until closer to 2012?

I think he has ADHD. Obama cannot sit still long enough to actually govern.

Plus he doesn't know how.
Used to voting present all the time.

“Does he even know how to lead?”

A fair number of people think he does. For more details, see my comment posted Oct 6, 2009 12:34:11 AM

Does he even know how to lead?

But wait--didn't The One just dazzle them at the UN? Don't they just love him there?

"The United Nations called on Tuesday for a new global reserve currency to end dollar supremacy which has allowed the United States the "privilege" of building a huge trade deficit.
"Important progress in managing imbalances can be made by reducing the reserve currency country?s 'privilege' to run external deficits in order to provide international liquidity," UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Sha Zukang, said."

Look what's happening on Obama's watch:

"In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar."

But--but--how can this happen after that magnificent Cairo speech?

Next, in a fireside chat about our national malaise, Jimmy Carter, Jr. will tell us to wear a warmer sweater and turn the thermostat down this winter.

Does that mean, they are trading in their SUV's and getting a Ford Focus

===Lead by example===

How about we try this...instead of 2 airplanes to Copenhagen, you just take one?