Kyoto 2 17

[QCE]

OK the last thread was too long!

This isn't really a question but:

Talk among yourselves about emissions and global warming and Kyoto.

To get started:

Emissions: bad - The world should try to form a world wide treaty that includes the USA.

Global Warming: Noone knows so why argue.

Kyoto: We can guess how it will turn out but won't truely know until 2012.

 

[CajunCenturion]

There is no point in repeating ourselves, so I suggest that we agree to disagree.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[QCE]

"It seems to me that reducing emissions would help the US economy."

It is possible. However it appears for now that the USA will attempt to reduce unilaterally. It appears that the rest of the world will try this thing called multilaterally.

 

[QCE]

OK Cajun thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Thank you QCE. I'm sorry that I was unable to present my thoughts so that you could understand them, even thought I didn't necessarily expect you to agree. Nevertheless, I too enjoyed the discussion.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jackbull]

Kyoto is just another way to weaken the US. First, who is going to enforce the rules if China, India or Russia breaks them? Second, allowing these countries to pollute really doesnt do alot to curb pollution. Third, kyoto will not please the enviro-whackos, they are charter members on the Blame America First crowd. Fourth, its all politics, I know Ive been to combustion plant permit meetings. All the DEP cared about was the hot botton pollutants of the day. Does anyone remember Dioxin? If yont Google Times Beach and Dioxin. The Chemical industry kept telling us not to worry and they were right, but that didnt stop the closing of an entire town.

 

[LCruiser]

Wow. Long thread.

One problem with the "anthropogenic global warming" scenario is that convection is the major vertical heat transport mechanism - and convection is not affected by ghg's.

Then, we have the natural variability model which predicted 1998 as the warmest year, to cool now until 2030. Well, we'll see, but 1998 was in fact the warmest year.

So, why is the Arctic warming? Pollution. Real pollution, particulates decreasing the albedo of the snow covered areas, including glaciers. Sure, there is another reason - increased plant growth from enhanced CO2. CO2 is the closest thing we have to manna. People are a little greedy to want to prevent CO2 from increasing the third world's food supply.

 

[pennpoint]

LCruiser
Are you saying that increased CO2 content in our atmosphear results in increased rowcrop production in some areas? Thus some people want to minimize this condition. But, then who are these people.

Regards
pennpoint

 

[LCruiser]

I'm not aware of any crops that do not respond favorably to enhanced CO2. Increases, of course, depend on other limiting factors such as rainfall and soil conditions.

Check this website out:

http://www.co2science.org

 

[BitTwiddler]

If Kyoto 1 was supposed to force countries to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions, then it was a bust.

Here's a pop quiz:

Match the following countries with the percentage that each nation's CO2 emissions changed from 1990 to 2003.

The nations are listed in alphabetical order.

Australia
Austria
Britain
Canada
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Japan
Luxembourg
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
US

The percentages are listed in descending order. Positive numbers denote increases and negative numbers indicate reductions in CO2 emissions.

41.7
36.7
25.8
25.6
24.2
23.3
21.5
16.5
13.3
12.8
-1.9
-2.3
-13
-16
-18.2

Bonus question: Which two countries did NOT sign the Kyoto protocol?









Answers:

Spain 41.7
Portugal 36.7
Greece 25.8
Ireland 25.6
Canada 24.2
Australia 23.3
Finland 21.5
Austria 16.5
US 13.3
Japan 12.8
France -1.9
Sweden -2.3
Britain -13
Luxembourg -16
Germany -18.2

Australia and the US did not sign the Kyoto protocol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005111...eyEVqb737YB;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

 

[VisiGoth]

The poorer countries around the world should be thankful for the extra CO2, at least according to the scientists who did the studies. The higher CO2 is better for growing the crops, although only fractionally.

The extra CO2 was also way too little, or the effect too weak to have any impact on the coming ice age. Since we are in a secular global cooling it sounds good to attempt to hold back the cold, but I think the forces of nature are much too strong.

I think it an absolute shame to misdirect the international talks into the political threats involving a red herring, and an incorrect one at that! The pollution and toxin issues are far more important that is unarguably a bad thing.

 

[epoisses]

The problem is: few people have accurate data and many people are biased, especially the ones who do have data. Hence we are forced to look for a different decision basis than sound data.

Alternative decision bases are:
- maximising my income (companies)
- maximising the number of votes I get (politicians)
- minimising the impact on the quality of my life (everyone else)

What will happen is very easy to predict:

- Every politician naive enough to advocate a significant reduction of CO2 generation (drive less, fly less, heat less, etc) hence impacts people's quality of life, will be voted away.

- Alternative energy sources will only be pursued if economically attractive, either because the price drops (subsidies, technological progress) or the oil price raises to insane levels (1000$/bbl, but OPEC already said it will line out around 50$ next year).

- Significant action to reduce CO2 will only be taken if CO2 becomes a major and imminent problem: the earth gets uncomfortably hot, my house gets flooded, or similar. Some melting iceberg on the north pole is NOT a major problem.

Meanwhile the discussion will continue, but how violent it might be and how convincing either side may think their story is, nothing significant will happen.

 

[VisiGoth]

The major problem I see with the CO2 push is that it dilutes the real problems of CO and toxic pollution. Perhaps some environmental groups glommed onto it because it was easy to understand and could be made to look like it hits home soon as epoisses clarified.

The benefit more CO2 has for crop production in poor countries seems tenuous at best. To forestall the next mini ice age (200 years from now) seems futile with today's technology. The ice age 100k years from now should not be worried about now.

This argument might be the foretelling of problems to come when weather control comes into the range of possibility. At first I am sure that a benefit in one region will be at the cost of another.

 

[LCruiser]

Agreed - it's one thing to say "cut down on the byproducts of combustion" - it's entirely another to say "cut down on the *product* of combustion.

It's entirely plausible that we should be considering the retrieval of carbon from the depths to be *rescuing* it and returning it to the biosphere where it can do us some good.