Obama to reduce CO2 emissions by 17%. But will it have any effect?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Here is Obama’s plan to reduce CO2 emissions: www.guardian.co.uk...

I recently decided to calculate how much of a reduction in global warming Obama’s plan will theoretically have, and I came away rather surprised: chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk...

Quote from my own post:

So how much difference will this 17% reduction make to global warming? Looking around the net I’ve not seen anyone quantify it. Currently the total amount of human CO2 emissions per year is around 30 gigatonnes. Of that the US contributes about 5.5 gigatonnes. Reducing that by 17% gives us 0.935 million tonnes. Let’s round that off to 1 gigatonne. That works out at 0.13ppmv per year. That would give us about 0.9ppmv by 2020. To convert gigatonnes into ppmv see here. The amount of extra radiative forcing produced by a given increase of atmospheric CO2 is supposedly determined by the IPCC’s equation: RF = 5.35log(C/C0)W/sq.m. Where RF stands for ‘Radiative Forcing’; C0 is the initial CO2 concentration; C is the final CO2 concentration, and W/sq.m stands for ‘watts per square metre’. The current CO2 level (as of 2013 stands at about 400ppmv). Therefore a 17% reduction in America’s CO2 gives us a radiative forcing increment of 5.35log(400.13ppmv/400ppmv) = 0.0017W/sq.m.

Now we can use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to the question of how big a temperature increase would be produced directly at the Earth’s surface by that amount of RF after equilibrium was achieved. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the radiance of a body is proportional to the 4th-power of its absolute effective temperature. Initial surface temperature of Earth (T0) = 15.0C = 288K. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law we get: Initial surface radiance (I0) implied by T0 = 390.1W/sq.m. Increment of irradiation from whatever source (dI) = 0.0017W/sq m. Therefore new surface radiance (I1) = 390.1 + 0.0017 = 390.1017W/sq m. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law again (in reverse this time) we get: New effective surface temperature (T1) implied by I1 = 288.0003K. Temperature increase on T0 (i.e. dT) = 288.0003 – 288.0 = 0.0003C. Therefore Obama’s goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 17% is expected (using the IPCC’s equations) to avert a global warming of 0.0003C per year.

This calculation is the maximum theoretical warming from CO2 as the Stefan-Boltzmann law calculates it as a perfect absorber of electromagnetic radiation, or light, meaning that it absorbs all radiation that falls on it. If we applied CO2’s emissivity from experiments by Hottel 1954 and Leckner 1972 the warming would be so infinitesimally small, you would probably have to add 5 more zeros in front of that number. This whole thing to me is totally insane. The US is prepared to waste all this money to avert a global warming of 0.0003C/year.

Has the world gone mad over this global warming hype?




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Pappa Smurf is calling to all his loyal voters in the Global Warming Faith to return their loyalty in the mid-term elections and make it count.

Of course this pittance won't do much ...in the mean time, he keeps making life a living hell for Oil extraction but does nothing outside order his own EPA to halt the final reporting which likely would have shown a connection between fracking and very bad things. Big shocker there...... Science kicked to the curb for politics. Whoda Thunk it?

EPA fracking pollution probe in Wyoming halted

The difference is...He campaigned on attacking Coal, Oil and C02. His buddies are in natural gas and extraction. So...... Destroy whatever is left of the American economy so he can have a PERFECT run of ruin across our land ...while totally ignoring and in fact, ordering a HALT to what likely would have given the proof needed to DO something about the rape of our land by Hydraulic Fracturing.

Somehow, I'm not the least surprised...and your Warming crowd, sadly, is probably partying. Short sighted and ignorant to a lethal fault for us all. As usual.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Meh.

All part of his socialist agenda.

(Climate change as an economic tool, if they really wanted to stop glbal warming they'd stop god damn fracking!)

I was reading an old favorite of mine from 1990 that predicted everything that has happened from 2000 - present, concerning America.

America kept to the plan completely - almost like following a script (well, it is really innit)
edit on 3-7-2013 by ObservingYou because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
My plants wont like this news.... They were looking forward to "massively increased CO2 levels"


On a more serious note :
Think for yourself, question authority


To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability, to inform yourself.


Namaste.

edit on 3/7/13 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/7/13 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/7/13 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/7/13 by WiseThinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

the decision to bypass a deadlocked Congress and issue an executive memo

Hey, there's something new!



calling for new rules curbing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

What, like a carbon tax?


Al Gore said the address was the "best speech on climate by any president".

I would like to see the speech because so far in this article I haven't read one singe real idea for curbing CO2 emissions. I'm willing to bet his speech doesn't contain any real plan either, just reassuring word play.


would not tolerate attempts to cast doubt on the science underlying climate change

Oh ok, so there's no chance for a fair debate. Never mind the fact our winters are getting colder and colder down here in Oz.


Many of those who praised Obama for regulating power plants, such as boxer, urged him to take the next step and put a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

Oh that was completely unpredictable huh folks? There is no real plan offered anywhere in this article.
edit on 3/7/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by WiseThinker
 


shhhhh..... You're not supposed to say C02 is what global plant life depends on for life, like we depend on the Oxygen they produce from it. C02 is suppose to be horrible, evil and awful gas. Worse than Cyanide to hear some people hold forth on the subject.


I guess some folks just don't like green maps with vegetation. Plant Haters..why for so?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Lol accidentally posted a rather odd bit of text from my clipboard into my last post...
Fixed now.

EDIT: and for the record if Obama really meant what he was saying he would push proven technology like Thorium Reactors. Or better yet release one of the many efficient motor designs which have been suppressed over the years.
edit on 3/7/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
17% is better than 0%. When air pollution gets so bad that in some cities you can barely see because of it then it is to wake up and do something about it.








posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by WiseThinker
 


shhhhh..... You're not supposed to say C02 is what global plant life depends on for life, like we depend on the Oxygen they produce from it. C02 is suppose to be horrible, evil and awful gas. Worse than Cyanide to hear some people hold forth on the subject.


I guess some folks just don't like green maps with vegetation. Plant Haters..why for so?


If we weren't clear cutting the rainforest then maybe the CO2 wouldn't be such a problem.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 

I am not denying that air pollution exists.

But for all we know, those photos could show fog.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
No effect.

When Third World Countries are taking up the slack, for our own consumer negligence.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buster2010
 

I am not denying that air pollution exists.

But for all we know, those photos could show fog.



No.

They are real.




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Obama has a lot on his plate and he doesn't seem to eager to clean it off. There isn't enough time for any of this to get done as planned.

I wouldn't worry about what 17% means when I personally doubt they will ever get close to accomplishing this one.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Perhaps the President should be talking to South America about slowing down on clear cutting their continent's worth of Rain Forest then and not bashing the economy of this nation into the last shards of ruin, eh?

By the way.. nice pollution pics of other national cities. At least 2 of the 3 are. We are talking about the president of THIS nation..right? Not China or Mexico for their air pollution issues.... He doesn't run those nations.

* Correction: Those don't appear to include Mexico City after all. The top one comes back as Shanghai, the lower as another in China and the 3rd as Los Angeles.

Hey, Buster, when we're debating the AMERICAN President for AMERICAN Pollution issues...is it too much trouble to keep examples to AMERICAN cities ..instead of finding the worst of China (The worst polluter on Earth right now) to try and make us look worse? It's a small thing to ask...but intellectual honesty is a pretty big thing in the end.
edit on 3-7-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 

I didn't see a source, so I didn't know they were from China. If I took a picture of fog in the countryside, would that mean that it was pollution too? Just saying that a photo doesn't prove whether something is fog or smog.... it certainly doesn't work in identifying CO2 levels in the atmosphere (which is what Obama is willing to make us cut 17%).

But smog isn't caused by CO2 anyway.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Thanks for the post! I find it quite informative. S&F!



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Like I said.

How does one Country "try" to reduce, when the biggest countries out there are making goods for America, and have NO problem continuing their polluting ways?

This is a PR move by Obama, like everything else he does.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Ah, but its not just Smog.......


Thats the kicker.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Like I said.

How does one Country "try" to reduce, when the biggest countries out there are making goods for America, and have NO problem continuing their polluting ways?

This is a PR move by Obama, like everything else he does.


I agree 100%. It's a show I recall because it was almost unbelievable but as I recall it was one of the "How it's made" type shows for an almost boring presentation of 'just the facts'.

Anyway...They were going into how Window Washers in New York City at the World Trade Center and Empire State Buildings were finding seeds/grains as well as sand and couldn't figure out for the life of them, where it could be coming from.

It turns out the grains were from Kansas Wheat fields and the sand was from the Sandstorms across the Gobi Desert of China not too far in the past for the show's filming. Indeed.. It's a small small world and while Obama figures he can win a vote by passing draconian laws here? Other nations laugh, thank him for his stupidity and cash in on the competitive advantage he just handed them on a Silver Platter for the fact THEY don't have to suffer the same fools for their own profit margins. Just American companies.....what few we still have here, anyway.

Want to see why companies off-shore everything and them themselves, in the end? Why, look no further to define EXTREMELY hostile business climate.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by sonnny1
 

I didn't see a source, so I didn't know they were from China. If I took a picture of fog in the countryside, would that mean that it was pollution too? Just saying that a photo doesn't prove whether something is fog or smog.... it certainly doesn't work in identifying CO2 levels in the atmosphere (which is what Obama is willing to make us cut 17%).

But smog isn't caused by CO2 anyway.


. . .

Add Tineye or Google Image Search to whatever browser you are using. it lets you cross-search thing's like Buster's graphics in a matter of a few seconds. The top one is Shanghai, China...with a couple dozen variants in resolution and dimensions available for anyone who wants a better copy of it, for instance.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join