Kyoto and the EU
 

oops

So much for leading the world into a new and prosperous environmental nirvana. Maybe we should make the US signing of Kyoto conditional on the EU following through. "If you guys demonstrate that you can make the treaty work, we'll jump on board. Also, please stop your bitching."

-sm

Full implementation of Kyoto woul do zero to help mother earth. Gotta run, will defend later. :)

Such a self centered species . . .
 

like we really have any real control over what happens.

Let's see here . . . we have a difficult enough time predicting the weather, especially more than three weeks out. What's makes the human species think they can predict a 10,000 year cycle? We've been keeping track of the weather for what? 2 - 300 years in euope (maybe a couple thousand years in the far east?).

Also, another report I read recently says that the middle ages may well have been hotter than it is now. I don't care if it's true or not . . . it's the point that no one really knows. Especially if we are talking more than a few hundred years ago, no one has a clue . . .

To assume that we can destroy this earth is idiocy, nothing the human species can do can really put a dent in this earth. Can we kill ourselves off? sure. That, comparatively, is easy. Short of the time when we can "control" a singularity will there be a time on this earth that we have the potential of truely wiping every living thing from this planet. Until then, we are just really messy houseguests. Either we will learn to clean up after ourselves, or we will go away . . . in either case, earth will still be around.

edit: I really do spell like a third grader

Most of what you say is true. However, you're also making the assumption that we can't destroy the Earth. Is your assumption any better?

We cannot destroy the earth, but global warming will make life harder for all of us. We can certinaly destroy our civilization, but I do not think we can make a real dent on the earth.

We are just a temporary blip on the screen - but then again so is the earth. In a few billion years, the Sun will expand and scour the earth in plasma - wiping all of human history away.


Should we be concerned about global warming? The overwhelming scientific concensus is: yes. Is global warming anthropogenic? The overwhelming scientific concensus is: yes. Should we make attempts to curb our use of fossile fuels and make a real effort to transition to other energy sources? I think we should.

If we are not effective stewards of the world while we are here, we will be creating problems for our descendants. I think that the transition to compliance to the Kyoto protocols would be expensive in the short term, but the impact of global warming will be felt long after the financial wounds have healed and the possible negative impact of global warming on the finances of the world are much more dire than the impact of the Kyoto Protocol.

Let the attacks begin.

30 years ago the "experts" were predicting another ice age was imminant.
15 years ago the "experts" agreed that global warming was upon us.
Now some of the "experts" are saying no it's ice age time.

EX = past tense = has been
SPERT = drip under pressure

EXPERT = Has been drip under pressure
Who really knows what's going to happen?

/nod Bruce
 

No one knows. And as much as we try and predict it . . . we don't have a clue. I realize this is a much more macro example, but what percentage of the matter in the universe can we *not* account for, given our current cosomological theories? Something around 80% IIRC.

The earth is on cycles. Day, night. High tide, low tide. Winter, spring, summer, fall. And these are just micro examples. I am certain that there are cycles, on this earth, which have durations, that the human mind cannot concieve.

We, as a sentient species, are short sighted (social programming and genetics), arrogant (programming), and self destructive (comes from the short sightedness). Will we kill ourselves off before we can get some of us away from this planet? Who knows. We are already on the clock, it's just that we have somewhere between 7 and 14 billion years to get it done. :D

juju; what technology do we possess that can kill off everything? Ah sure, we can kill ourselves off no problem. maybe even a good portion of the rest of the species; but at this time, we possess nothing that can come close. It's not any weapons we possess today, and if there is anything that is a gradual process, we are a far more fragile species than the earth is a fragile planet, so we will kill ourselves off, and the earth will recover.

So yes, it's an assumption, but one I stand behind.

xoxoxoxoBruce,

There has beena lot of research into this it is not just a bunch of guys in lab coats making off-the-cuff estimates. The problem is, CO2 acts like a switch. Different levels of CO2 cause the climate to behave differently. We are currently in a climatological static equilibrium. If we increase the amount of CO2 to a sufficient degree, we could send the environment into another cooler or warmer equilibrium. Most of the models I've seen consider the warm up to occur in the short-term, followed by an ice age.

We can just assume that our climatologists are as ignorant now as they were 50 years ago - even though our sampling, analysis, and modeling capabilty has grown at a geometric rate over the past couple of decades. Or we can take advantage of our intelligence and devise a plan that will help to stave off climate change as long as possible.

As a people, the choice is ours, but we will not face the outcome. We are creating the world for our great-grandchildren. DO you want to leave them with a mess, or would you like to do your best to make sure their world is not a deathtrap - so to speak.

I don't have any great grandchildren and probably won't since I don't have any grandchildren and probably won't since I don't have any children and don't intend to.
If you love someone have them spayed or neutered. I did.
Anyway, I'm not going to get all in a lather every time some chicken little thinks the sky is falling. I've seen too damn many of them and all the chicken littles can't even agree among themselves.
As for your great grandchildren, I care as much about them as your great grandfather cared about me.
With all the taxes I'm paying to educate the little bastards they ought to be able to take care of things themselves.

*crack* and a long drive, the outfielder fades back, it could be it could be it IS! It's a home run! And the crowd goes wild.

I love it when people that don't know the science or the argument assume that this is a chicken little story. I guess if the issue can;t be explained in a sound bite, it does not matter.

I feel that as sentient beings, we have an obligation to try to take care of the ecosystem of our only planet. We have no where else to go. If we fuck up this planet, we might not have future generations to remember us.

But who cares - Survivor is on.

I love it when someone who can't convince someone else assumes that person doesn't know the subject matter.
Know science? Nobody knows science. Even Einstein only knew a part of science. That's why we spend so much on research.
The problem is when certain scientists(what happened to i before e except after c) make dire predictions, when even their peers can't agree, about the future.
Hell, they can't even predict the weather. There's just too many variables many of which are unknown. Also the best scientists don't necessarily get the most press. After all, sensationalism sells newspapers.

You are right, Bruce. It was wrong of me to make such an assumption - I just get a little touchy when rabid creationsists rail me for believing that global warming is anthropogenic. I know that you are not like that, but I still go on the offensive out of my own pig-headedness.

Predicting the day to day weather is nearly impossible because we cannot have a sampling grid that is large enough to provide an adequate amount of data to make predictions to a high degree of accuracy. But meteorologists can tell you the general picture - and they are right most of the time.

There are a lot of variables in the equation, you are right. But we have a massive histoircal record of the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the past few thousand years, and we can combine that data with Redwood and sequoia growth rates, pollen type counts inside of ice cores, historical records, sediment acretion rates, etc to come up with a general history of our climate for the past few thousand years. The vast majority of the competant, peer reviewed scientists in the fields of geology, meteorology, and physics believe that the climate is warming up and that the warming is anthropogenic.

Then you can come up with the cost/benefit analysis. If the climate does change a great deal over the course of the next hundred years because of our use of fossile fuels, the change will almost certainly be to the detriment of human civilization. If it does not change, then we have expended a few extra dollars (far less than the amount of money in Bush's tax cut) and we have increased fuel efficiency - thereby conserving our remaining oil resources a little longer.

If you can only see the short term cost, then I guess the Kyoto Protocal is horribly bad.

You were doing OK up to there. That sounds like a carrot and not the point you were trying to make. Besides Wolf solved that problem in another thread.
They have all this data for thousands of years and make their best computer models of the future. This only means that things will change. Things have always changed but to predict the end of mankind (assuming that's a bad thing) is going too far.
Considering all the things that MIGHT happen, like a virus that makes SARS look like a zit. Remember the plague or even the flu that killed millions during WWI was before todays mobility.
But back to the point. I'm still not convinced "they" can predict the future with any certainty.

you are right. That was a carrot. Quite and astutue observation.

Computer models? Fuggetaboutem
 

The problem with modeling the climate is twofold

1) Extreme dependence on initial conditions and other nonlinear effects. Or, in other words, chaos. This means that tiny changes in the model's input lead to large and complex changes in the predicted output.

2) We don't know the initial conditions. I am a regular reader of _Science News_. Every few months, researchers discover a new significant source or sink for CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Each time one of these is discovered, it renders all previously climatological predictions based on modeling _invalid_.

The case for the existence of global warming is pretty good. The case for anthropogenic origin of that warming is far weaker. Personally, I note that we're at the top of a ~110 year solar cycle. Further, apparently the Earth's orbit is entering a period historically associated with warming.

And if global warming is NOT anthropogenic and in fact there's not much humans can do about it, then extreme austerity measures like those demanded of the US by Kyoto are foolish. In fact, we might need to burn more fossil fuels in order to mitigate the effects of any warming.

And then there's the possibility that global warming might actually be beneficial...

Re: Computer models? Fuggetaboutem
 

At no time in the earth's previous 10,000s of years history has the earth's temperature risen so far so fast as it has in the last 100 years. Normally changes this large take many thousands of years.

Why was the Brooklyn Bridge built? Back then the annual ice completely across Hudson and East Rivers was a problem. Today it never happens. That kind of climate change used to take a thousand years. Only in this last hundred years has the earth seen a temperature change so quickly.

The problem is associating this change with specific activity. For example 11 Sept was a rare oppurtunity to prove another theory. Jet contrails are now known to contribute to planet cooling. As the list of variable continues to grow, in the meantime we know two things:
1) Mankind has somehow affected the earths climate far faster than any previous natural event ever has, and
2) Energy consumption in the US could be significantly reduced with an increase in standards of living. The SUV is the classic example. No reason (other than bean counter logic) for a vehicle that small to consume so much energy.

Reasoning from our right wing government is quite extraordinary. Global warming is a function of human activity. But since we cannot stop it, then we must not even try to slow it. Ostrich feathers were observed after that declaration.

Sounds like you've been readin Bjorn Lomborg.

Sensitive dependence upon initial conditions explains why you cannot predict over which street a particular cloud will pass one day in advance. This is because we do not have a measurement grid with a resolution high enough to sample a sufficient level of data to provide an accurate model that far in advance. But highly chaotic weather patterns tend to smear out the number of bifurcations of possible weather trends over time.

We can predict certain trends and be reasonably sure those trends are accurate. In the case of global warming, the scientific community noticed a trend, then they sought to find a reason for the trend. Over time they came to the conclusion that the levels of CO2 - which we have a very accurate record of over the past 10,000 years - have been rising rapidly in the past century. We also know that the average temperatures across the world have been rising for the past century.

When climatologists run models, they don;t just run one or 2 they run 50 or 100. They take the most common results and the construct a probability matrix based upon the models.

The vast majority of the scientific community is in agreement about global warming. It is not just a fluke idea postulated by doom and gloom nuts.

Hogwash. Try reading a science publication that is a little less of a journalistic endeavor and more dedicated to hard sciences. Moreover, try reading Science News. I have noticed quite a few articles within it that acknowledge that global warming is real and anthropogenic.

In fact, the most common source for the myth that there is no scientific consensus is a book written by a guy called Bjorn Lomborg called "The Skeptical Environmentalist". The book was debunked for using selective notation, erroneous conclusions, and generally bad science. The guy basically used what information he had that could support his claim but ignored anything that was not in support of his hypothesis. The guy's book was heavily slanted toward scientific narrative instead of scientific research, and the journalists snapped the guy up as proof of a controversy.

There is not a controversy. There is a strong concensus.

I know of an 11 year solar cycle, but I never heard of the 110 year solar cycle. Please enlighten me.

The only time I remember anything associating sun spot activity with 110 years was a study taking all the historica measurements of sunspots ( 110 years worth ) and charting their level of change. In that study, the highest reading occurred during the 1960s - which did not have higher average temperatures than the 70s, 80s, or 90s.

Right out of Lomborg's book. This is a gem The Milankovitch cycles take place over the course of tens of thousands of years. They are marked by glaciation and inter-glacial periods. We are currently in the Holocene - the most recent period of inter-glaciation. We are actually moving toward the cool end of the Milankovitch cycle - we will have an ice age in a few thousand years.

Within the Holocene there have been many periods of warmth and cooling, but the transitions have always been rather slow and periodic. Our current level of climate change has been very rapid ( on a geologic scale ) and it coincides with the industrial revolution.

Kyoto is not extreme in any sense. It would require us to reconsider our priorities, but it would not be an overwhelming cross to bear. It has been mischaracterized by the Bush administration because it challenges the automitive and petroleum industries' short- term profit margins.

It will be to some areas - it will be horrible to other areas. The poroblem is, the burgeoning human population requires more foot and water every year. We currenlty produce a surplus of food and potable water. If our climate changes dramatically, it could have a huge effect on all ecosystems - greatly decreasing our ability to feed ourselves. This could lead to massive starvation, famine, disease, etc.

He who fails to plan, plans to fail. I would rather change what we can to ease the climate change as much as possible so that our descendants are not forced into a situation that may end up with the extinction of our species.

kyoto poll
 

i wouldn't vote for any of the choices.

the kyoto protocol is a commitment by nations to tackle the problem of global warming, accepted by the un and its members as a threat to civilisation and likely to do significant economic and social harm, and not just to coastal states.

the difficulty (for the us) is not in the treaty, but in the implementation/mechanisms.

the uk and many other states are on target to reduce carbon emissions in line with kyoto and previous undertakings. you can debate about the economic effects, but look at the facts. the uk is probably the strongest economy in the eu right now even having paid the price of reducing carbon emissions.

check out the climate change page of the uk sustainable development site for more factual information:
http://www.sustainable-development.g...#climatechange