Kyoto FLAMEWAR!

[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!!

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]

Troll!!

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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:

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]

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....

You forgot my instructions at the end:

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]

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]

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]

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?