[RussSchultz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm

While lecturing everybody else, especially America, on the morality of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it has been abundantly clear from the start that most European countries didn't have a snowflake in hell's chance of meeting their own Kyoto targets.

I've provided plenty of fodder for another US/EU flamewar, so do your part to add to global warming and begin bickering.

More humorous, however, was the Russian stance that they may not sign Kyoto because global warming would be beneficial to them.

[Natoma]

Troll!! :P

But in all seriousness, I think this is a key statement from the article:

Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.

Can't possibly hope to reduce emissions if not enough countries are willing to follow the protocols. Oh yea, and Russia's stance is pretty dumb. Sure, make Russia a temperate climate. Why not go all the way and help the poor alaskans and greenlanders.

What about those wayward antarctic souls who could use a little warmth too? I'm sure all our coastal cities could use a little more water. Imagine the worth of the beachfront property formed in Kansas?

[Joe DeFuria]

The EEA says the main reasons for the 2001 increase in all six gases were a colder winter in most EU countries, which meant householders burnt more heating fuel.

So, in short: warmer weather = decreased emissions. Looks like the "problem" is also the solution.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Troll!! :P

But in all seriousness, I think this is a key statement from the article:

Can't possibly hope to reduce emissions if not enough countries are willing to follow the protocols.

What does having more signatories have to do with individual countries (or regions) that have signed on not meeting targets?

[MrsSkywalker]

You know, we just had a winter here that was day-to-day 20 degreed (F) COLDER than normal.

Global warming my ass.

[Natoma]

The article counted the emissions from the EU as a whole, not as separate countries. Each country that signs onto Kyoto still needs to ratify the protocols in their respective nations. Becoming a signatory is only a promise. It is not necessarily binding. The US could become a signatory, and still not ratify the Kyoto protocols in congress.

Hence:

Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.

Not enough countries have ratified the protocols in their respective legislative bodies for it to actually make a positive dent yet.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

You know, we just had a winter here that was day-to-day 20 degreed (F) COLDER than normal.

Global warming my ass.

Believe it or not, colder weather as a result of global warming makes sense.

The warming does not have to be uniform. Basically global warming can affect the temperature in at least two ways. One is that portions of the atmosphere will warm up, say over a polluting country, while other portions remain the same temperature. If enough of the atmosphere changes, it will affect the global wind currents; the oft-used jet stream is one example. The differential fronts will expand or contract, thus changing weather patterns.

So what can happen is that we'll end up getting warmer winters and cooler summers, i.e. our weather will become more temperate. Or we could have hotter summers and colder winters as the normal wind currents that keep our climate more temperate no longer blow through as strongly.

Or we'll have chaotic swings in weather as the wind currents destabilize, i.e. 70 degree weather one day and 40 degree weather the next, followed by 80 degree weather for a week, then 30 degree weather for another week.

Fyi, that happened in NYC over the past few weeks. Crazy temperature swings, one after another. Ah thermodynamics.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

The article counted the emissions from the EU as a whole, not as separate countries.

Right. And the EU as a whole is moving in the wrong direction. Are there any EU nations that have not signed on? Any EU nations that don't believe Kyoto is a good idea?

BTW, The article also gave an account of some individual countries and a gross idea of how they are faring on individual targets.)

Each country that signs onto Kyoto still needs to ratify the protocols in their respective nations. Becoming a signatory is only a promise.

Right.

Not enough countries have ratified the protocols in their respective legislative bodies for it to actually make a positive dent.

Pleaes clarify.

Are you saying that the EU countries are just dragging their feet? When do these legislative bodies plan on actually taking action? 2015?

What does the article mean when it stated:

The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.

Is the EU committed, or not?

BTW, what are you thinking by responding to my posts? I thought you were "serious" about "ignoring" me...

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Believe it or not, colder weather as a result of global warming makes sense.

Right......

It gets colder...It's global warming!
It gets hotter...It's global warming!
It's dryer this year...It's global warming!
It's wetter this year...It's global warming!
Too many gypsy moths this year...It's global warming!
Where are all the gypsy moths this year? It's global warming!

[Mariner]

That's one possible worry here in the UK. At the moment, we have a very temperate climate relative to our latitude - we're about the same latitude as Labrador! This is due to the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift), the flow of (relatively) warm water which comes up from the Gulf of Mexico.

One hypothesis is that Global Warming could change the flow of the Gulf Stream which would make our climate much more like that of Canada. Winters here might be a bit wet and miserable but I don't fancy freezing my nuts off much!

[Natoma]

The article stated that 4 countries so far had ratified Kyoto and were on target to meet or exceed the targets. However, not every country has ratified Kyoto yet. I don't pretend to know why.

And I said before that I wasn't going to respond to your posts when you made ridiculous assertions, or when it was clear that it was just posting to troll. Your post in this thread certainly wasn't, so I responded. I've ignored your other posts that weren't particularly intelligible. So I'm still on track.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Right......

It gets colder...It's global warming!
It gets hotter...It's global warming!
It's dryer this year...It's global warming!
It's wetter this year...It's global warming!
Too many gypsy moths this year...It's global warming!
Where are all the gypsy moths this year? It's global warming!

Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic. Check the entire post that you snipped one sentence out of for reference.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

And I said before that I wasn't going to respond to your posts when you made ridiculous assertions, or when it was clear that it was just posting to troll.

Hmmm...Strange way to state that you decided to stop simply throwing blatant insults at me, when you can't come up with a reasonable response to a logical post...

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic.

Great, well such things (localized swings in the absolute statistical numbers) have been happening since the dawn of time. Guess "man made gasses" just might not be the primary cause....

[Natoma]

Back on topic:

Originally Posted by Mariner

That's one possible worry here in the UK. At the moment, we have a very temperate climate relative to our latitude - we're about the same latitude as Labrador! This is due to the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift), the flow of (relatively) warm water which comes up from the Gulf of Mexico.

One hypothesis is that Global Warming could change the flow of the Gulf Stream which would make our climate much more like that of Canada. Winters here might be a bit wet and miserable but I don't fancy freezing my nuts off much!

That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!

Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change." Not because "Global Warming" isn't an accurate assessment of what's happening, but because those that don't understand thermodynamics and atmospheric differentials will automatically assume that global warming means we should be having 60 degree weather in december (that is of course, if you're in the northern hemisphere, well above the equator. ).

It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Great, well such things (localized swings in the absolute statistical numbers) have been happening since the dawn of time. Guess "man made gasses" just might not be the primary cause....

You forgot my instructions at the end:

Originally Posted by Natoma

Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic. Check the entire post that you snipped one sentence out of for reference.

Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe. No, we're not on the verge of the apocalypse. But certainly we are at a point in our history where with a little foresight, we can avoid huge problems to come in the next 100-200 years. And I believe we're moving in that direction.

[MrsSkywalker]

My honest view on global warming is as such:

Earth has been around for a very long time. In it's turbulent history, there are clear cut periods of warming and cooling. We had an ice age not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things...what happens after the ice ages? A period of warming! What a revelation!

It's a rather conceited view point to assume that the Earth would stop it's natural weather patterns to accomodate humans.

If we were entering another ice age, then the blame would be placed on the amount of refrigerators and freezers humans have.

You can't blame humans for Mother Nature's plan.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

My honest view on global warming is as such:

Earth has been around for a very long time. In it's turbulent history, there are clear cut periods of warming and cooling. We had an ice age not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things...what happens after the ice ages? A period of warming! What a revelation!

It's a rather conceited view point to assume that the Earth would stop it's natural weather patterns to accomodate humans.

If we were entering another ice age, then the blame would be placed on the amount of refrigerators and freezers humans have.

You can't blame humans for Mother Nature's plan.

Indeed you are correct. There have been periods of warming and cooling in the Earth that are naturally occurring. There have also been periods of mass extinction and pollution, not caused by man.

Does that mean that just because it's happened in the past, we should go around exterminating all the living creatures on the planet? That we should pollute indiscriminately?

Of course not. The point of this entire endeavour is to try and limit human influence on the planet as much as possible. Whether you want to accept it or not, the point is that we *do* have an effect on the environment through our actions. We have changed the Earth's climate, especially when taking into account the wind patterns of the planet. If you know thermodynamics, you have to know that increasing the temperature differential of one body of air will most certainly cause weather pattern changes. This isn't hokey science.

I don't think it's conceited to believe that we can and are changing our environment. I do think it's rather short sighted to believe that no matter what we do the Earth won't be affected, simply because it's been here longer than we have and has experienced cataclysmic changes during that time.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!

Like that hasn't happened before? And won't again?

Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change."

I agree, though I'd wager that the "global warming" label was applied more by junk scientists, politicians and alarmists, than true scientists.

People just don't get "alarmed" by something like "climate change"? Why? Because they don't know what it means. Change for the better or worse? Even worse, when people ask the questions, the only honest answer that one can give is "uh, we don't really know how it's changing, or why, or what we can do...all we know is it's changing."

"Your region might get warmer...it might get cooler"
"You might have more precipitation...you might get less"
"You might get more gypsy moths...you might get more."

Say something more definitive like "It's getting WARMER!" (Or "It's getting COOLER for that matter"), and people can dream up their own dooms-day scenarios of coastal floods due to melting ice caps or the next ice age....

Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe.

Really? And how much half-way accurate "statistical history" do we actually have before we start measuring tree rings for you to make such a statement?

It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.

Indeed.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Does that mean that just because it's happened in the past, we should go around exterminating all the living creatures on the planet? That we should pollute indiscriminately?

Why is your analogy relevant at all? No one wants to kill all living creatures or pollute indiscriminately. You (as all environmentalists), equate CHANGE with BAD.

Why?

Why does climate change mean (for one example) things like "extinctions", instead of more generalized changing the make-up (some extinctions, some creatures NOT going extinct when they otherwise would have naturally) of the planet?

The point of this entire endeavour is to try and limit human influence on the planet as much as possible.

I disagree completely.

You come from the standpoint that human influence = bad.

I come from the standpoint that human influence = change. Change does not necessarily mean bad.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the point is that we *do* have an effect on the environment through our actions.

Agreed.

We have changed the Earth's climate,

Possibly. And the growth of rain forrests also changes the earth's climate. Is that a good or bad thing?

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

You forgot my instructions at the end:

No, I didn't. I read your entire posts, I just don't repeat the whole thing in it's entirety, and I don't think it's good use of bandwidth to quote more than is necessary for you to know which context each of my responses is in reference to.

[Mariner]

I was reading recently that the climate in the UK was considerably warmer in the 'dark ages' than it has been in recent centuries. Vineyards were quite common back then in the South of England, but they have to work damn hard nowadays to get much in the way of wine here.

As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!

Maybe I should take up Scuba diving...

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Like that hasn't happened before? And won't again?

The point is that we should try and limit how much *we* change the environment. There are natural climate changes which occur on a geologic scale, i.e. thousands to millions of years, and then there are climate changes that occur on a human scale, i.e. months, years, and decades.

The changes that have been recorded in the past 10-20 years are most certainly occurring on a human scale, thus it is safe to conclude that these changes are not natural.

Originally Posted by Joe Defuria

I agree, though I'd wager that the "global warming" label was applied more by junk scientists, politicians and alarmists, than true scientists.

People just don't get "alarmed" by something like "climate change"? Why? Because they don't know what it means. Change for the better or worse? Even worse, when people ask the questions, the only honest answer that one can give is "uh, we don't really know how it's changing, or why, or what we can do...all we know is it's changing."

"Your region might get warmer...it might get cooler"
"You might have more precipitation...you might get less"
"You might get more gypsy moths...you might get more."

Say something more definitive like "It's getting WARMER!" (Or "It's getting COOLER for that matter"), and people can dream up their own dooms-day scenarios of coastal floods due to melting ice caps or the next ice age....

You took my quote out of context Joe.

Originally Posted by Natoma

Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change." Not because "Global Warming" isn't an accurate assessment of what's happening, but because those that don't understand thermodynamics and atmospheric differentials will automatically assume that global warming means we should be having 60 degree weather in december (that is of course, if you're in the northern hemisphere, well above the equator. ).

It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.

I stated that they should change the term from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change," not because "Global Warming" is not an accurate assessment of what is going on in the atmosphere, but because people that don't understand thermodynamics will automatically assume we're supposed to have balmy weather in the winter.

The intent of my *entire* thought was not to state that the term "Global Warming" is in any way alarmist or administered by junk science. To the contrary, it is a completely accurate assessment of the true nature of the climatological changes caused by man.

Originally Posted by Joe Defuria

Really? And how much half-way accurate "statistical history" do we actually have before we start measuring tree rings for you to make such a statement?

The statistical data is there for anyone to read. You can google it for yourself if you wish. And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.

As for the second post you made in response to my response to MrsSkywalker, the only thing I can say is that the Earth can only sustain a certain amount of removal.

The National Academy of Sciences released a study in June of 2002 which stated that the rate of resource removal from the Earth exceeds its natural ability to regenerate. Currently, we remove 1.2 years worth of resources from the Earth for every year of regeneration, and that rate is climbing.

The point of all this is that we must curtail our activities to bring it back in line with what the Earth can sustain us on. If we can curtail our polluting, our environmental destruction, etc etc etc, to a point where the Earth can replenish and regenerate itself on an even keel basis, then we'll be in harmony with the environment. That is what I and many other people espouse.

That is why we need to watch how we affect our environment. I don't believe that human influence is bad. I believe that *too* much influence is bad. We can't remove from the earth indiscriminately and expect everything to come back.

Farmers have to turn over their soil every other year or so, to make sure that the soil is not depleted. That's an instance of letting the earth regenerate. It's something that needs to be implemented on a planetary scale.

[Silent_One]

As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!

Well, looking a little north of the Antarctic.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1058353.stm
Arctic sea ice 'thins by almost half'

Two UK scientists say they have found evidence to show that sea ice is thinning across the Arctic........
They say their work shows that the ice in the Fram Strait, between Svalbard and Greenland, thinned by nearly half in two decades.......
Dr Wadhams told BBC News Online: "Between summer 1976 and summer 1996 there was a 43% thinning of sea ice over a large area of the Arctic Ocean between Fram Strait and the North Pole.

And then another article!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/523065.stm
Arctic sea ice gets thinner

There has been a "striking" decline in the thickness of Arctic sea ice according to scientists who have studied data gathered by US Navy submarines.

And then even another article!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/552327.stm
Humanity blamed for ice loss

A new study says there is now very little doubt that human-induced warming is behind the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice seen in recent years.

Finally the latest article!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1311007.stm
Arctic's big melt challenged
New data suggest the North Pole got a little thicker in the 90s

......The evidence for major thinning is supported by submarine data. Upward-looking sonar readings, studied by both US and British scientists, have produced broadly similar results: about a 40% reduction in draught between the 1960s and 1990s - by draught, researchers mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack.

But the submarine data are not exactly comprehensive: the cruises were not continuous and the data sets only cover certain areas in the Arctic. And this is partly what got Dr Holloway into thinking the ice may simply have been "mislaid".......... He wondered if multi-decadal wind patterns known to operate in the Arctic could have shifted the ice into areas not surveyed by the submarines, giving the illusion that the ice was losing volume over a period of time. And when he matched the timing of the submarine visits with what he knew about wind cycles, his suspicions were confirmed.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level.

[covermye]

Of course we can't have a global warming argument without one of these contributions:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agricul...s/fs_beef.html

A teaser:

Livestock produce methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both are very potent greenhouse gasses, methane having a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide