Koyoto is here
 

So we're all going to be saved right?
One of my favorite journalists has this to say.

Does anyone honestly think Koyoto is going to help?

Like it says here at the Reason website, Kyoto is a solution in search of a problem.

"However, the alarming 5.8 degree Celsius forecast resulted from a combination of very sensitive computer climate models with economic projections that assumed such unlikely developments as essentially no improvements in energy production technologies over the next century and a world population of 15 billion people emitting four times the current per capita levels of carbon dioxide."

Not me. The earth will create another ice age all by itself. The oceans are warmer than the ice caps so sooner or later, they will melt. Higher water levels will increase and redistribute pressure on the tectonic plates which will lead to increased vocanic activity which will lead to more greenhouse gases and a filtering out of sunlight which will cool the earth and possibly lead to another ice age.

Kyoto didn't stop the last one did it?

Entropy, baybee, entropy.

So your article is saying 1) a magic bullet technology will save us, 2) the world population won't be 15 billion but rather 7-9 billion, and 3) the per capita CO2 emissions will remain flat, not quadruple.


Well, 1) I sure hope so, but you can't make plans based on some magic technology that hasn't been invented yet. 2) So maybe it's not as big an increase, but it is increasing. 3) Just because per capita levels have been flat for 2 decades doesn't mean they will stay that way. Places like India and China are developing. Once a billion chinese start driving cars instead of riding bikes, I think there will be a slight increase per capita.

Global warming is a real problem. Whether Kyoto helps or not is up for debate.

While I agree koyoto is pointless my reason is a touch different - as far as I can see it's far too little, too late to have any real impact. The bit that people are missing is feedback, we're getting very, very close to the level where it kicks in, once you hit that point, we're essentially fucked. The level of annual rises of carbon in the atmosphere is now above 2ppm, it's getting faster. We may stop putting out as much carbon but the damage we've done and are doing to the earth's carbon sinks is close to a point where it becomes irrelevant. Logarithmic curve here we come.

hey jag - are you saying i should blow off work and start planning my End of the World Party? i think i still have some of the decorations left over from my Y2K party...

My God and yours, Wikipedia, has a pretty good article, including a nice summary of why some countries are for and against.

No, but don't buy a house on the coast.

that is why i'm in arizona. i've got prime beachfront property when: A) earthquakes cause california to sink into the sea, or B) global warming causes water levels to rise high enough to put CA under water.

i'm sitting on a gold mine here in arizona. C'mon global warming!!!

That's when the frozen methane kicks in and it's all over but the shouting. :eek:

you can't sink CA, shit floats.

Your Reason article assumes some unlikely things of its own and makes some outright unreasonable assertions. For example, it isolates out a US government statistic on per capital CO2 emissions and happily states that this amount has become flat - therefore we have nothing to fear. Actually, this flat rate of emissions is a 20 year average that includes the oil shock era of the 90's and does not include data from the past 4 years when Asian countries, China in particular, have begun to utilize an ever increasing share of the world's hydrocarbon based energy resources. Even if per capita CO2 WERE flat, population growth continues to increase, as do CO2 emissions.

From New Scientist (available by subscription here http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...climate-change):

The author of the Reason article somehow seems to think we are all now better off because we are now using more petroleum for our energy requirements then in the past when coal was the fuel of choice. Wrong.

Between 1850 and 1950, roughly 60 Gt of carbon were burnt, chiefly as coal. The same amount of carbon is now being burnt every decade as petroleum AND coal. Researchers estimate from the known amount of fossil fuel burnt, that in the middle of the 19th century the natural concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 270 ppm. This estimate has been shown correct by measurements of air bubbles trapped in the polar ice cores before the onset of the industrial revolution.

Up to this point anthropogenic CO2 levels have been mitigated by natural sinks - vegetation in the form of forests, as well as micoorganisms in the soil and plankton and algae in the oceans. Some CO2 is also dissolved in the world's oceans. One potential cause for concern is the possibility that whatever the natural sinks are, they may one day "fill up" and stop absorbing CO2. If this happened, the rate at which CO2 is building up in the atmosphere could double.

Again from New Scientist:

I'm afraid Koyoto may be a day late and a dollar short.

We should follow France's lead and turn to nuclear energy. Nukes plus hybrid cars in 2020!

Actually I do think so, even though I'm a Three Mile Island "survivor". There have been safer designs of nuke plants that have been developed since the bad old days.

(Remember, it's pronounced "nuke-u-lar")

Kyoto = Fuck the USA
 

Which of course is why Jag and the Europeans like it. And why even the Clinton Administration wouldn't push it.

There's only two real ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. One is a massive increase in the use of nuclear energy, and you _know_ that ain't going to fly politically. The other is the mother of all austerity plans; the only way to reduce CO2 significantly is to burn a lot fewer hydrocarbons. That means lots less energy use. At first the US could simply accelerate the transfer of energy-intensive processes to countries not as constrained by the treaty. But when that runs out, it's bye-bye cars, bye-bye air conditioning and heating, bye-bye refrigeration, etc. And since people won't give these things up voluntarily, the government will have to slide even faster towards totalitarianism.

And all for a theory about a chaotic system for which we have only the fuzziest ideas of the initial conditions and processes involved. New _massive_ carbon sources and sinks are regularly discovered, and yet some scientists feel confident predicting disaster.

I can't promise the predicted disaster won't happen. What I _can_ promise is that the result of the US joining and observing Kyoto will be at least as bad. We'd do better to have New Jersey slip into the sea.

One is a massive increase in the use of nuclear energy, and you _know_ that ain't going to fly politically.

I really wish the world wouldn't fear nuclear power so much that we even have to rename things that don't even involve particle radiation (anyone remember when MRIs were called NMRs?). I really think, if handled properly, that nuclear power could fix a lot of our issues.

Reading about Kyoto leads me to question one thing: why is the US, and not China, the leading producer of emissions? I would have thought we would have been surpassed by China years ago with the amount of physical product they output compared to the US.

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

oooor, maybe it's because we're the US of A and we want to be number 1 in every way possible.

The Chinese don't all have cars yet.

My understanding is that it was based on manufacturing output and didn't consider vehicle pollution. This is why I find it all a little confusing, not to mention that the numbers would be very easy to fudge.

But they are working hard to get them.

I agree that nuclear power plants would be an effective alternative to hydrocarbon fuels. Alas, the public is unduely terrified of them.

I never cared much for New Jersey, but I imagine the people who live there would be rather miffed if it went under the waves.

Er.....
I understand kneejerk is easier than say, thinking but at least read the fucking posts before trying to attack me.

evidence?

While it's equally easy to set up a straw man (Koyoto would lead to a fascist government is at least unique in it's idiocy) it doesn't make it any more correct. Massively reducing hydrocarbon output would require a massive investment in replacement infrastructure and re-tooling existing infrastructure but it is doable, if not politically viable.

Let's not forget why events happen such as Three Mile Island and The Challenger. In each case, management was so technically naive as to conform to the definition of anti-American. Hell, at Three Mile Island, they only had two phone lines; had the same problems making phone calls like everyone else. The anti-American GPU Corporation could not even ask Bell of PA for more phone lines or special service.

But better management alone is not going to make nuclear a superior alternative. There remain a few major problems for which there are no reasonable answers. One major problem is waste disposal. IOW a solution does not exist. Current plants must now maintain large on-site storage of and expand facilities for more nuclear fuel waste. This even includes nuclear plants that have been shutdown. Second is that if nuclear were to be used exclusively for energy, then we have a severe shortage of nuclear fuels. Yes there is even a limited supply of raw nuclear fuel - just as their is a limit to the amount of oil and other fuels.

The problems with all this is politics - especially those opposed to Kyoto using Rush Limbaugh half truths. Politics is how we promote ostrich thinking.

First a solution is found in major technology advances. No way around that fact. Not in more wars or more energy production - the nonsense lies promoted by ostriches. We need only review previous adversity in The Cellar to quantum physics to therefore appreciate a neanderthal response to what we should be doing.

For example, there is no reason for every vehicle of current size to be getting less than 30 MPG. Many vehicles are still using 1968 technologies. And so the naive (including the president) instead hypes lies such as a Hydrogen fuel solution. Yes H2 fuel was a gross and obvious lie. They understand the neanderthals would never see through that lie. The politics is not about solutions. And that is the problem. Technical naivety gives political reasoning (ie Rush Limbaugh) more credence than science fact.

Solutions do exist IF we choose to seek them. Any nation that does develop new technologies compatible with the Kyoto protocols will create the new jobs, new industries, greater wealth, geo-political power, etc. That is even the lessons of history. Innovators get rich. Ostriches complain about how liberals made everything go wrong. We only need look at the sad state of GM or AT&T to see what will happen. GM got all the government protection they wanted - and therefore is classically anti-innovative. This is what happens when neanderthals oppose things that inspire and require innovation. The Kyoto protocols are about innovation.

Yes, nuclear could be an partial solution. But even nuclear has severe problems that we are ignoring. A real solution repeatedly involves a concept of doing more with less. The hybrid, which was possible even twenty years ago, is an example of what happens when industry takes the "we can't do it so we should never try" attitude. IOW thank god for pro-American companies such as Toyota and Honda who did not need the Kyoto protocols to do what historically makes America great: innovate - push out the envelope - admit to and address real world problems.

Those who say it cannot be solved and therefore we should not even try? We called them luddites. Conservative attitudes are where most luddites are found - because their solutions include fear, myopia, and the anti-American attitude of promoting the status quo.

The Kyoto Protocols are not really the issue. We are right back to the same reason why some foolishly advocate a useless ISS rather than the super collider. Why some foolishy let their emotions promote a 'Man on Mars' nonsense rather than promote the advancement of space science.

UT does properly note that nuclear can be a partial solution. There have been some interesting advancements to nuclear power. A country that does not fear to innovate should investigate or be willing to experiment with such ideas. However this will never happen when the George Jr administration takes a $450,000 campaign contribution so that First Energy can continue to operate a nuclear reactor with both an unresolved Three Mile Island type problem and a hole in the reactor vessel. The resulting book would have been entitled, "We almost lost Toledo".

The US never built 2 nuke plants alike, indeed the plants didn’t even have 2 units alike. The long lead times for planning and construction, along with the desire to include the latest thinking/materials, led to a constant barrage of changing regulations coming from Washington. Every unit built included changes on the fly during construction.
It’s pretty obvious to scientists, inventors and auto mechanics that you don’t change more than one parameter at a time if you want to know the effect of that change. The result was no design was proven/tested over time.

France has had success with nuclear power because they standardized from the beginning. They built one design and upgraded all the plants as history and performance proved changes would be fruitful.
I don’t know what kind of effect their design or their whole program for that matter, has had on the long term health of the population but they at least haven’t blown them up.

As TW mentioned, waste is a big problem, not just spent fuels but thousands of barrels of contaminated tools, clothing and such. Imagine that every day after work you change your clothes but the ones you take off can’t be laundered, they must be stored in drums.....forever.
I may be naive but it seems to me we have all that contaminated land where they set off the nuclear tests. Why not put the waste there? :confused:

*rush limbaugh voice* If we used the land for that purpose, where would we bani... i mean allow future generations of poor people to live?

Why do I find that as unconvincing as others found the reason article?

because it's easier to put your head in the sand? Cold, hard, peer-reviewed and accepted scientific fact, cute little right wing rant magazines don't make it any less true. There is, in general still a certain level of debate about aspects of global warming inside the scientific community, I spend a fair bit of time talking with a number of people in the cambridge academic community but the only place you seem to find outright denial these days though is the chronically uninformed and laypeople in the US.

You clearly haven't read the website. Reason is most decidedly not a right wing web site. They're a moderate, independent, science and research based group.

Er... Have you? They are a Libertarian backed outfit. Whenever you read or hear about some "scientific" study, your first question should be, "Who paid for it?" Ayn Rand is not an impartial funding source for scientific research.

So is newsmax. The frigging tagline is 'free minds, free markets'. It's a site i keep a weather eye on and good stuff does bubble up but please, it's not within driving distance of politically neutral. Just because the articles often make sense doesn't mean there isn't a strong political bias.

Remove the extremist political rhetoric, and global warming is a fact. The charts alone of world historical temperatures show a most massive temperature increase in but less than 100 years - when all though history these changes took tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, the increase in global warming gases, especially CO2 has never been higher. World CO2 levels for over 400,000 years remained mostly just above 200 ppmv and never above 300. Suddenly, there is this verticle spike in CO2 to over 400 ppmv - all in 100 years. But that sharp increase in CO2 will not create global warming? Only if you blindly believe that god will determine what happens.

Easy to be a political extremist - to ignore the facts. In science, there is no doubt that man has created a sharp increase in global warming. Only two questions remain. Exactly how much does each factor contribute to the problem and how bad will the problem be. We know global warming is a problem created by man. We know it would be far worse if we had not filled the skies with so much dirt. We just don't know how bad it will become.

Those who see the future are now vying to define national boundaries in the Arctic. Sometime at or after 50 years from now, there will be no polar icecap. Time to start planning for ocean ports on the Northern Norwegian, Russian, and Canadian land masses. This again is not in dispute. The only question remains when will it happen. 2050? 2070? 2090?

And Kansas City? :confused:

Oh, great...that's just what we need. Bunch of horny sailors running after our daughters around here.

From what I'm able to discern, and I'm no scientist, global warming is occuring. I believe that the main objection to doing anything about it in the USA is financial. I don't know that Kyoto is the end-all, but shouldn't someone somewhere act like there *might* be a problem?

Republicans and Democrats alike will be adversely affected by catastrophic climate change. No matter what happens, the price of energy will go up as a result...worldwide tropics or global ice age.

If the accellerated global warming is caused by man, and I'm not saying that it isn't, then doesn't it make sense that the most underdeveloped parts of the world, where the fastest population growth occurs, need to be brought up to speed technolgy-wise so that their population growth will slow and their energy consumption will be channeled through more efficient means?

Wouldn't that solve part of the problem as well?

I think the theory goes something like "if we apply Kyoto to the Third World, it will strangle their economic development, and they'll have no opportunity to reach parity with the rest of the industrialized world."

In other words, it is acknowledged that Kyoto makes everything more expensive to do, Third World nations can't afford it because they fall below a certain level where it can be absorbed or passed on successfully. Meanwhile, the US just looks at it and says "it is bad for the economy, we aren't going to do it."

That is at least a logical conclusion. If it is bad for Third World Countries, then it is going to have a negative financial impact on everyone, everywhere who follows it.

And here we are, still suffocating in our own waste. I don't think the comparison to yeast in a carboy is a bad one.

One need only review the 1960s for deja vue. As MBAs took over the auto industry, then auto pollution did not exist? When that was obviously a lie, the industry cried (lied) before Congress swearing they could not possibly meet the 1975 pollution standards. In the meantime, Chrysler already had a fleet of cars in CA using a system called CAP that met the 1974 standards.

We have same today. If these political extremists were innovative, then America would be leading the charge with innovation. But that is too much a change from the status quo, for extremists. Therefore global warming must not exist. Where a patriotic American sees advancement, new products and markets, innovation, and wealth; the political extremist sees costs, messy changes, destruction of the status quo, and fear.

Global warming gases are not increasing. The need to preserve a status quo says so (or somehow god will prevent it from happening). Oh.... facts and numbers now say otherwise. So the new spin is "We can't do anything about it so we should not try". Deja Vue. Those anti-innovative, late 1960s, American auto executives, who refused to innovate, are back masquerading as righteous, right-wing Republicans. Previously American MBAs literally surrendered technology (and therefore the jobs) to Japanese and Germans. So as pollution control (which also means less energy consumption) devices were required, they arrived with Japanese and German patents.

No wonder history only repeats itself every 30 years. How many remember by the American auto industry made nothing but anti-American products in the 1970s and 1980s.

That oxygen sensor now found in all cars? A Bosch patent. A little money goes to Germany for every time a Chevy is sold - because GM stifled American innovators. Those who fear change took the ostrich approach which meant lost American jobs. They denied that pollution was a problem then, as they deny global warming today. They denied that cars getting only 10 MPG could be doing 24. Deja vue. IOW they feared to innovate- the definition of an anti-American.

Denials about global warming mean other nations will prosper when America finally concedes reality. Then America must pay big bucks for technologies developed elsewhere. Ostriches are the classic example of anti-Americans. Ostriches fear facts about global warming. When will the extremists among us stop denying science facts - thereby destroying future American jobs and wealth? When we call them what they are - anti-Americans - people who fear to innovate. Financial reasons are only another excuse to promote and protect the status quo - an anti-American mentality.

The Reason Foundation is not backed by Ayn Rand; Rand wasn't particularly fond of Libertarians and Libertarianism. That said, _Reason_ is a political magazine.

This latest study I knew Jag would jump on is just as political, though. I wonder how long it took them to tweak the parameters of their favorite model to make them fit the data. Or did they just choose data which was used in the calibration of the model in the first place?

Yes and no intersetingly enough, there are a variety of arguments around about the economic impact of koyoto, some positive some negative, replacing old, inefficient equipment and bringing other gear up to scratch can have a positive economic impact along the same lines as most infrastructure investment. Of course there's also the economic impact of rising sea levels and more extreme weather to factor in.

Does it make you feel better to say that? You know it would be quicker to put your fingers in your ears and sing loudly, it'd be equally logical as well. Do you have any evidence, even the slimmest strangest rant off newsmax or what a freeper told you to back that up? Or is it simply that if something doesn't fit your narrow worldview it must be denounced loudly before it might cause critical thought? I mean for fucks sake, it's US government funded research, not greenpeace.

YES! real estate prices will continue to go up as the continents are reclaimed by the oceans! "you know, they aren't making anymore land... maybe i should just put all my money in real estate..."

hey - how did one of my clients get their thoughts into this thread? :confused:

Ms. Rand is safely in the grave where she can wreck no further harm on this nation's innocent young or anyone else. I was joking about her funding of any scientific studies. I'll take your word regarding her stance on Libertarians. For all her disdain of them, Libertarians seem to have an inordinate fondness for HER, however.

From my brief perusal of the Reason article and its source, Reason appears to have isolated one statistic out of context and gone on to draw some completely false conclusions from it - such as, petroleum releases less CO2 when burned for fuel than does coal. Actually, petroleum may release fewer particulates into the atmosphere than does coal, but the burning of petroleum is hardly "reason" for good cheer on the environmental front.

Jaguar, the best part is that after much of London and other parts of the UK go under water, you guys are going to get pretty damn cold. While the rest of the world basks in the coming heat wave, Europe is going to become a very chilly place. Among other things, climatologists figure the oceans' currents will be altered significantly by the torrent of fresh water pouring into the seas from melting glaciers and ice caps. The Gulf Stream will most likely vanish.

That's OK, you Europeans don't need to thank us for this. We Americans love to bask in our ignorance (along with the warmth), and elect politicians who don't "believe in" global warming and refuse to sign off on any international treaties.

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you don't really think that because the sea around the equator is warm it is melting the ice in the arctic.

Incidentally, (most of) the ice in the antarctic isn't bathed in seawater anyway, it's sitting high up on land.

Ok, I'm joking. But while we're on the subject, why did the last ice age end?

That's not what the science says. The science says sea around the equator is warming - both significantly and quickly. (It is why we teach the concept of differentials to high school students - so they can appreciate the major difference created by three letters.) Furthermore numbers show the depth of that unusually significant warming is slowly moving into deeper regions of the ocean - because the sudden increase in temperature has been so large and recent.

Melting of ice in water (ie Arctic Ocean) is not a concern for landmass flooding. Melting of ice in Greenland and Antartica will cause sea level rise. To understand the principles, pour yourself a coke with lots of ice. Notice that as the ice melts, the coke overflows the glass. Or does it.

No it doesn't overflow. The melting of the block of ice sitting on top of the glass causes it to overflow. :cool:

that's a relief ;)

The last ice age ended as a part of a natural cycle. What we are doing is raising the whole cycle up several degrees (at least), in a very short space of time. Normally the cyclical changes are slow enough that we don't notice them in the course of one lifetime, however this change is so rapid that we will suffer.

tw, yes you are right! Sorry if I didn't say what I said clearly. Good point about the north pole ice not changing the sea level, most people don't realise that so it's always worth re-iterating.

This is one of those topics where there are two opposing groups with such inconsistent beliefs that at least one group must be fooling themselves: so which is it? Can we prove/disprove global warming conclusively? (without just waiting to see if we're right/wrong!) And if we can find a conclusive proof one way or the other, will it actually convince everyone or will some people still stubbonly refuse to believe?

Global warming is happening. The only debate is over the extent of the effect humans have over it.

The so-called Little Ice Age in the seventeenth century ended because the temporary reduction in the solar constant associated with the Maunder minimum (a period where very few sunspots were visible).

Once it becomes obvious which side is correct, the other side will join them and will claim that they always held that position.

And which, also, just so happened to be the dawn of the industrial revolution when mankind began to burn a lot of petro-based fuels, starting with coal, and releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong, many climatologists feel that solar activity does impact the earth's climate. However, man has also now gotten into the act. It's way past time that we finally recognize this point.

One thing I'm curious about is a comparison between the amount of greenhouse gas released by some of the bigger volcanic eruptions over the last 300 years and, for example, the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted by every car in America in one weekday. When I have a moment, I'll try to find it and will post the results in case anyone else is interested.

And you intend to prove...?

Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography even puts that question to bed. Mankind - hands down without a doubt - is the source of the unprecedented near vertical spike in the global warming curves. There is no doubt that humans are the one, only, major source of global warming. The only questions remaining are what parts of human activity are the most destructive.

For example, many previous research studies - from temperature change during the three days of no airplanes after 11 September to measurements of light on the moon during total lunar eclipses - suggest that the world would be significantly warmer if we had not filled the air with so much dirt.

No, there is no doubt that mankind is a slam dunk reason for the sharpest rise in global temperatures. The only remaining question is which activities are doing the most damage.

What?! You're saying dirty air cools the planet?

And your point, question, or confusion is...?

It blocks out the sun and so the earth cools since solar radiation is reduced.

Not to be confused with polluting of the air with invisible chemicals and gasses. :yelsick:

Time to eliminate all those scrubbers from the coal stacks.

Unfortunately darker and dirtier skies also means less plant growth, less food, less conversions of CO2 to O2, more human disease (ie sharp increase in asthma), etc. Dark material in the atmosphere may have been actually masking symptoms of a problem that is, otherwise, much worse. I forget the exact number, but something like 10% of sunlight is now blocked. Again, no doubt that mankind has caused a massive shift in the earth's atmosphere. George Jr eventually conceded same. But using typical MBA training (or maybe from his experience of not even drilling one successful oil well), he says we cannot do something. Therefore we should not even try. George Jr is typical of MBAs who fear innovation. He is even a quitter. His solution - denial.

Even more amazing: nobody even noticed the lunacy of George Jr's reasoning. Such ostrich thinking does not change facts. A problem exists. Many are so in denial as to stifle the advancement of mankind. The solution to global warming: innovation. Instead George Jr worries about mythical missile attacks and other junk science only for political gain - such as a silly Man on Mars. Science for science reasons: too complex for an MBA and no glory for the politician. The science of global warming and the innovations to solve it: not listed in the political agenda provided by Cheney, Rice, and Wolfovitz. Denials of global warming are not supported by science. That denial comes from politics. Science says global warming does exist AND is created by humans.