Koyoto is here

[jaguar]

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

There is no glory in the threat of climate change. The story it tells us is of yeast in a barrel, feeding and farting until it is poisoned by its own waste. It is too squalid an ending for our anthropocentric conceit to accept.

Does anyone honestly think Koyoto is going to help?

[Troubleshooter]

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."

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

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."

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.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

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."

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):

IN 1957, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 315 parts per million (ppm). It is now 360 ppm, that is, 0.036 per cent. Before the Industrial Revolution, the CO2 concentration was below about 280 ppm. Most of the extra carbon required to make the CO2 has come from burning coal and other fossil fuel; while part of the increase may be due to the destruction of tropical forests. When 1 ton of carbon is burnt, say in the form of coal, it produces about 4 tons of CO2, as each carbon atom combines with two oxygen atoms from the air.

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:

The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980. And Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down.

The global warming would be more pronounced if it were not for sulphur particles and other pollutants that shade us, and because forests and oceans absorb around half of the CO2 we produce. But the accumulation rate of atmospheric CO2 has doubled since 2001, suggesting that nature's ability to absorb the gas could now be stretched to the limit. Recent research suggests that natural CO2 "sinks", like peat bogs and forests, are actually starting to release CO2.

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

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Does anyone honestly think Kyoto is going to help?

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.

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

The oceans are warmer than the ice caps so sooner or later, they will melt.

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.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Wombat

Please tell me you're joking.

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

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by Beestie

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

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?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Wombat

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?

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

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Beestie

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

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).

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by russotto

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).

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Wombat

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[jaguar]

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.

[lookout123]

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...