Bush on Kyoto

Orwell said:
The scientific consensus exists. I have to insist on this, even if, as you say, it is "moot". I'm too tired of seeing this subject spinned into oblivion.

That there is some warming is pretty much universally accepted. That it is anthropomorphic is widely believed, but not proven. But there is little consensus on how exactly any future warming will occur. The models simply aren't good enough yet - they can't model current conditions very accurately, there's little reason to put much faith in their future predictions.

For example, carbon dioxide is actually a fairly minor greenhouse gas. A MUCH more important one is water vapor. But unlike carbon dioxide, we can't establish what the historic record is for water vapor in the atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere. So we're blind to one of the biggest factors in all of this. We don't know what human activity has done to water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
 
Orwell said:
The scientific consensus exists. I have to insist on this, even if, as you say, it is "moot". I'm too tired of seeing this subject spinned into oblivion.

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Your source ruks but, well, let's break that down anyway. Note my emphisis.

Some current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol is predicted to reduce the average global rise in temperature by somewhere between 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003),...

The emphisis is that it does NOT reduce the temperature, it reduces the RISE in temperature by a paltry and very temporary 0.28°C at best. So instead of a 5°C rise we get a 4.62°C rise. IIRC, temporary = seven years but I could be off. That's what YOUR reference states. Pick another. IPCC would be fine with me.

Orwell said:
I also noticed that the vote you mentioned was at least 7 years ago, before the scientific evidence started really pilling up.

It was piled high and deep then too. Certainly high enough for bill clinton, gore, and many others to believe it. The vote was 95-0. Kyoto wouldn't work even if it worked perfectly. But it would cost a hell of a lot for all that non-work it did.
 
Ziggurat said:
That there is some warming is pretty much universally accepted. That it is anthropomorphic is widely believed, but not proven. But there is little consensus on how exactly any future warming will occur. The models simply aren't good enough yet - they can't model current conditions very accurately, there's little reason to put much faith in their future predictions.

For example, carbon dioxide is actually a fairly minor greenhouse gas. A MUCH more important one is water vapor. But unlike carbon dioxide, we can't establish what the historic record is for water vapor in the atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere. So we're blind to one of the biggest factors in all of this. We don't know what human activity has done to water vapor levels in the atmosphere.

I'm not going to discuss this stuff with you. I don't know enough about all the intricacies of all the models and, clearly, neither do you. But here's some food for thought :

Supporters of the global warming theory
Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include:
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India [4].
The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [5]
(Note, when they say global warming, they mean anthropogenic global warming; saying that they support "global warming" in the strictest sense would be trivial since everybody knows that life on Earth would be impossible without a certain amount of "global warming")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

By the way, I've been using and even contributing to Wikipedia for a couple of years now, and I have never caught it doing really bad mistakes (not even just bad mistakes: sometimes they have a detail wrong and that's it), specially in things that concern very controversial subjects. And even if you don't believe them on this, you can always check their references yourself.
 
Rob Lister said:
The emphisis is that it does NOT reduce the temperature, it reduces the RISE in temperature by a paltry and very temporary 0.28°C at best. So instead of a 5°C rise we get a 4.62°C rise. IIRC, temporary = seven years but I could be off. That's what YOUR reference states. Pick another. IPCC would be fine with me.
You didn't pay attention the stuff I put on bold. It is very clear to me that Kyoto is far from enough. And it saddens me that we can't even implement these relatively small cuts.
Rob Lister said:
It was piled high and deep then too. Certainly high enough for bill clinton, gore, and many others to believe it. The vote was 95-0. Kyoto wouldn't work even if it worked perfectly. But it would cost a hell of a lot for all that non-work it did.

Yeah, but the evidence back then was nothing like it is today, and there wasn't a scientific consensus back then as marked as there is now. But it doesn't matter. Both the administration and the republican party only care about science when it suits them. Do you need me to back this last statement up? I can provide you with a heap of articles on the subject if you so desire.
 
Kopji said:
Global warming is not the huge subject of massive public discussion and interest in the US that it is elsewhere. This is tough to take but most Americans don't care about global warming and as long as Bush says everything is hunky dory that's good enough.

Not necessarily true. Ordinary Americans do care, as evidenced by increasing Prius and other hybrid vehicle sales.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/auto_sales.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24832-2004Aug22.html


The next thing Americans have to change is their driving habits. It doesn't help that almost all of the passenger rail infrastructure was wiped out as men like Robert Moses transformed cities into car-friendly grids at the expense of efficient public transportation. Americans have to learn to drive smarter--plan their errand routes better so they don't drive two or three times down the same road, buy in bulk when possible so you don't have to go out every other day when something runs out, or even (dare I say it?) walk to the store every so often and leave the car at home? I realize this may not be the only solution for every one in every circumstance, but it's a start.

Michael

P.S.

And yes, I'm in the process of letting my wife know that when it comes time to replace our car in a few years, it will be with a hybrid SUV, probably the hybrid Toyota Highlander.
 
Ziggurat said:

For example, carbon dioxide is actually a fairly minor greenhouse gas. A MUCH more important one is water vapor. But unlike carbon dioxide, we can't establish what the historic record is for water vapor in the atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere. So we're blind to one of the biggest factors in all of this. We don't know what human activity has done to water vapor levels in the atmosphere.

I won't pretend to be the expert, but I think this is not right. Water vapor is not a "greenhouse" gas. Water cycles readily. CO2 does not, nor do others like methane (from farting cows and termites, among other things) and synthetic gases. If anything water vapor has the opposite effect. It freezes at low temperature (surprise!) and forms clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight more than they hold in infrared from below. They cool.

I think you have this wrong.
 
Elind said:
I won't pretend to be the expert, but I think this is not right. Water vapor is not a "greenhouse" gas. Water cycles readily. CO2 does not, nor do others like methane (from farting cows and termites, among other things) and synthetic gases. If anything water vapor has the opposite effect. It freezes at low temperature (surprise!) and forms clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight more than they hold in infrared from below. They cool.

I think you have this wrong.

No, it's much more complicated than that. From a quick google search:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
When I mention water vapor, I'm talking primarily about water vapor that hasn't condensed (formed clouds). It is transparent to visible light, but just like CO2, it is much less transmissive in the infrared spectrum than most of the atmosphere. It is, therefore, an important greenhouse gas (meaning that it slows the rate of heat loss from the surface of the earth). In fact, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 in terms of how much heat it traps. This is complicated because temperature affects how much water gets into the air, and the amount of water in the air affects how much heat gets trapped (or more precisely, how fast or slow heat is radiated off into space), and it's all highly nonlinear because of things like cloud formation (which, as you mentioned, can reflect sunlight). This is being studied, but it's extremely complicated and difficult to model because unlike CO2, it's affected by climate feedback and has important spatial and temporal variations, and (also unlike CO2) it's impossible to measure past water vapor conditions, so we cannot extend the record back in time to see what it was like even in the middle of the 20th century, let alone further back.
 
Elind said:
I won't pretend to be the expert, but I think this is not right. Water vapor is not a "greenhouse" gas. Water cycles readily. CO2 does not, nor do others like methane (from farting cows and termites, among other things) and synthetic gases. If anything water vapor has the opposite effect. It freezes at low temperature (surprise!) and forms clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight more than they hold in infrared from below. They cool.

I think you have this wrong.

Water vapour is the single most important greenhouse gas.

That is why this is so complicated and difficult to model. Most of the "forecast" warming comes from water vapour feedback.
 
Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Elind said:
The US has always been ahead of the rest of the world in reducing polution of various sorts, including greenhouse gasses. Europe was making cars with catalytic converters for export to the US for years, for example, before they made their own that way.
I don't know where you get the reduction in greenhouse gases from, but in other terms it would be more accurate to say that California has been ahead of the rest of the world. The main reason for that is Los Angeles. The situation had to get truly dire before the private sector finally admitted there was a problem. Car manufacturers had plenty of scientific evidence that NOx is good for the lungs ("bracing" was the term, as I recall), and who needs to see more than a hundred yards in Los Angeles anyway? Snipers, that's who. So smog was a public-safety issue with two sides. :)

And catalytic converters would be ruinously expensive and bring the economy to its knees, of course.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Elind said:
3.8 liters to the gallon make that abour 23 miles to the gallon. Most cars, including my pickup, will do that or better. Only the large hogs are worse. Granted there are plenty of those, but they are now selling at a discount.

Hmm, not sure I get your maths.

If we are considering lets say an average of 6 litres per 100km for a european car, then that is 1.57 gallons per 100km.

In terms of km per gallon, that is then 63.7 km/g.
In terms of mpg, thats 39.6, very different from 23.

39 seems reasonable for an average. My Ford Puma coupe does 40 mpg, easy.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

GraculusTheGreenBird said:
Hmm, not sure I get your maths.

If we are considering lets say an average of 6 litres per 100km for a european car, then that is 1.57 gallons per 100km.

In terms of km per gallon, that is then 63.7 km/g.
In terms of mpg, thats 39.6, very different from 23.

39 seems reasonable for an average. My Ford Puma coupe does 40 mpg, easy.

Wait 'till you have a few kids and a dog to load in and see what you drive.

I was using the higher gas usage as more representative of anything practical, rather than the smallest city cars.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

CapelDodger said:
I don't know where you get the reduction in greenhouse gases from, but in other terms it would be more accurate to say that California has been ahead of the rest of the world. The main reason for that is Los Angeles. The situation had to get truly dire before the private sector finally admitted there was a problem. Car manufacturers had plenty of scientific evidence that NOx is good for the lungs ("bracing" was the term, as I recall), and who needs to see more than a hundred yards in Los Angeles anyway? Snipers, that's who. So smog was a public-safety issue with two sides. :)

And catalytic converters would be ruinously expensive and bring the economy to its knees, of course.

I'm skeptical that private sectore "finally admitted" there was a problem as oppose to legislature finally got enough support to pass bans on things.

Of course the same laws are driving the price of gass higher, and higher in California. But hey, you get what you vote for.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush on Kyoto

Grammatron said:
I'm skeptical that private sectore "finally admitted" there was a problem as oppose to legislature finally got enough support to pass bans on things.
Good point. They just stopped whining about it and got down to dealing with it.

Un-leaded petrol first became popular in the UK when Chancellor Lawson reduced the tax on it. Most cars had to be modified, but it was a simple, cheap procedure. Except for for most British-made models, which couldn't be modified. The manufacturers had lobbied long and hard in favour of environmental lead, and had never entertained the notion that a Tory government wouldn't do their bidding. Lawson was a bit of a renegade, though, and actually looked at all the evidence. He didn't last much longer.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it's much more complicated than that. From a quick google search:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html
When I mention water vapor, I'm talking primarily about water vapor that hasn't condensed (formed clouds). It is transparent to visible light, but just like CO2, it is much less transmissive in the infrared spectrum than most of the atmosphere. It is, therefore, an important greenhouse gas (meaning that it slows the rate of heat loss from the surface of the earth). In fact, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 in terms of how much heat it traps. This is complicated because temperature affects how much water gets into the air, and the amount of water in the air affects how much heat gets trapped (or more precisely, how fast or slow heat is radiated off into space), and it's all highly nonlinear because of things like cloud formation (which, as you mentioned, can reflect sunlight). This is being studied, but it's extremely complicated and difficult to model because unlike CO2, it's affected by climate feedback and has important spatial and temporal variations, and (also unlike CO2) it's impossible to measure past water vapor conditions, so we cannot extend the record back in time to see what it was like even in the middle of the 20th century, let alone further back.

What you are talking about is the detailed modelling of the atmosphere. Anything in the atmosphere has a "greenhouse" effect of one sort or another (some may be negative). That includes particles that are not gasses.

Water is not added by humans but other elements are and they may affect the performance of water vapor, or crystals, in the total equation, but water is not a triggering agent in the change any more than nitrogen or oxygen are.

One does not necessarily have to have a full understanding of the atmosphere to deduce that it is changing, or even to deduce what is primarily responsible for the change.

It is true that without a very detailed understanding one cannot project with certainty how the changes of the past will continue, but it is not reasonable to ignore an approaching hurricane because the forecast track is still uncertain, as we all know in Florida. The same applies to this.

Now if you want to argue that there is no evidence of global warming and no evidence that people have something to do with it, then I'm not qualified to debate, but I am qualified to judge that I should place my bets with the majority of the scientists who make their living studying such matters.
 
Global warming is not the huge subject of massive public discussion and interest in the US that it is elsewhere. This is tough to take but most Americans don't care about global warming and as long as Bush says everything is hunky dory that's good enough.

There's a reason for that: the "Boy who Cried Wolf" syndrome. The eviormentalist movement is so tainted with reflexive anti-Americanism and millenial catastrophism (remember, for example, the population explosion? Billions will STARVE TO DEATH BY 2000 unless the SHORT-SIGHTED IDIOT USA POLITICIANS will do this and that and the other thing RIGHT NOW!) that, even when it has serious criticism of actual faults in US policy, nobody listens, as it is impossible to distinguish it form the latest "Bush clubs baby seals nude" nonsense.
 
Almost to a nation, those few covered countries aren't complying. Under Kyoto, the EU-15 committed to collectively reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions to 8 percent below 1990 levels. Internally, however, a deal was struck under which many EU countries were permitted emission increases. These would presumably be covered by over-complying states Great Britain and Germany, due to the respective "one-off" political developments of shifting from coal to gas and shutting inefficient eastern production. This is Brussels's vaunted "burden sharing agreement."
However, those countries have since made clear they will not carry the rest of the EU-15 over the finish line of compliance. This is important for the simple reason that, regardless of any country's promise to Brussels, under the treaty each and every country among the EU-15 is stuck with an 8 percent-below-1990 commitment. As such, 12 of the EU-15 project egregious violation (by between 20 and 77 percent) of a treaty invoked by many in the European Union to demonstrate U.S. irresponsibility.
Consider the following projections for 2010 by member countries, as reported to Brussels, in relation to their now-operative Kyoto "Article 4" commitment of 8 percent below 1990: Portugal, over its promise by 77 percent, Spain by 61 percent, Greece by 51 percent, Ireland by 41 percent, Luxembourg by 31 percent, Finland by 27 percent, Denmark 26 percent, Italy by anywhere from 13 to 23 percent (following Italy's submission, the numbers discussed suddenly got worse), France by 19 percent, Austria by 18 percent, Belgium by 16 percent and the Netherlands by 10 percent.
Brussels masks these reported figures with clever rhetoric that does not withstand scrutiny nor crunching of the numbers that member states publicly submit, if with little fanfare. In early May, Spain became only the second EU country to (grudgingly) admit it will not comply.
These are not mere technicalities, but the reality behind the European Union's anti-U.S. rhetoric, and the stuff of political problems as talks presumptuously turn to a "second phase" of cuts. This is also why Italy has refused to consider the inane, operative EU posture of "Now that we have broken one promise, it is time to break an even bigger one!"
Europe's flagrant lack of adherence to Kyoto is wildly belied by the remarkable rhetoric aimed by official Europe at the United States. The EU claims the mantle of "leadership" on Kyoto while finding no apparent shame in the fact that the "rogue" United States, using the same baseline, would be tied with Ireland only for fourth-worst in Europe, at 41 percent over. Canada projects violation by 54 percent.

Insert Simpson's "ha-haa" sound here :D

Broken promises, hot air

I'm all for reducing pollution, but let's pick a plan that has some ROI.
 
Elind said:


Water is not added by humans but other elements are and they may affect the performance of water vapor, or crystals, in the total equation, but water is not a triggering agent in the change any more than nitrogen or oxygen are.

You just dont get it and I think its because you don't know the numbers.

First let me put this in perspective by stating that the earth has a history of climate change. Do not present any counter-arguements that ignore this fact. The earth has a history of climate change. The very puzzling thing is that if we look at the CO2 "records" taken from ice cores, and compare to the estimated temperature of the earth at the same time through other means, we find that CO2 was very seldom even in contention as the driving factor. Higher CO2 levels than now but lower temperature existed. Lower CO2 levels than now but higher temperatures existed. Ice age have come and gone. CO2 levels have not always followed these ice ages.

So what is the main driving factor that has changed earths climate throughout history?

We do not know. But we do know this:

The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (by volume) is currently ~2.5% and that of CO2 is ~0.04% So dominating is the difference that when the weather forecasters try to predict tomorrows temperature, they use the amount of water vapor in the local atmosphere as a key figure in the calculation, while they completely ignore the amount of CO2.

Saying that water vapor is part of a "system" is correct, but trying to use that to justify that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas is just plain ignorant. The only way you could even come close to getting away with that is if the amount of water vapor was a constant. It is not. Not even close. Because its not a constant, ignoring it is just plain ignorant. Theres no other way to put it. Its ignorant.

We do not know the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere throughout this "hockey stick" period but we do know that CO2 was not responsible for most of the climate change thats ever happened here on this rock. This is a very large hole that as far as I am concerned, blows away any CO2 "conclusions" made about this "hockey stick" period.

Bring us some actual evidence please. For sure the earth is warming up. Does CO2 play a significant role? Evidence please.
 
rockoon said:
You just dont get it and I think its because you don't know the numbers.

With respect, you don't get my point. I understand perfectly well what you say, which is what was said earlier by Zig and the link he provided. Please read my previous post again and address what I said there, not what I didn't say.
 

Back
Top Bottom