: Kyoto Protocol Takes Effect


PosterBoy
Feb 16th, 2005, 05:20 PM
Just thought that you'd like to know that much to the chagrin of some, and to the jubilation of others[1], the Kyoto Protocol has come into effect as of today, February 16th, 2005.

See the news around the web:

BBC News: Kyoto Protocol Comes Into Force
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4267245.stm

Australia Broadcasting Corp: Pressure Remains on Australia as Kyoto takes effect
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1303628.htm

CNN: The Long Road to Kyoto
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/15/kyoto.advancer.ap/index.html

The Japan Times: Flawed Compromise takes effect
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?ed20050216a1.htm

CBS News: Kyoto Protocol takes effect
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/world/main653849.shtml


Background info on the Kyoto Protocol via Wikipedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Accord


<small>[1] It's worth noting, before anyone makes any assumptions, that I don't fall into either category.</small>

IronMac
Feb 16th, 2005, 05:46 PM
Does anyone else hear the gnashing of teeth and the swish of parting waves as the Oracle of Salt Spring Island responds to the chum in the water? ;)

Carex
Feb 16th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Okay, everyone take a deep breath. Can you feel the difference from yesterday? Neither can I.

Caillou
Feb 16th, 2005, 06:21 PM
In a gush of enthousiasm to do our share in support of the Kyoto protocol, our family has decided top stop farting.

We make a difference now.

MacDoc
Feb 16th, 2005, 06:39 PM
:clap: It's about time SOMETHING gets started. New technologies - new methods.

An Albertan's plan to ease Kyoto pain

Head of oil organization says 'hardship' can become 'economic opportunity'

By*PATRICK BRETHOUR
Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - Page B3


CALGARY -- The oil and gas industry may never love the Kyoto environmental accord, but Eric Lloyd at least wants the industry to learn to live with it.

He says the oil patch can save a billion dollars every year by introducing up-to-the-minute technologies for reducing greenhouse gases, which have the happy side effect of slashing energy bills and the amount of wasted reserves.

Although he has a green streak, Mr. Lloyd is no environmental lobbyist. No, he is a petroleum engineer with three decades of experience -- and the head of Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, whose members include most of the big names in the oil patch.

He has a blunt message about Kyoto, which comes into force tomorrow, for conventional oil and gas producers. "It's not a hardship, it's an economic opportunity," Mr. Lloyd says, adding that oil sands operations face a much stiffer challenge.

Others have made the argument that reducing greenhouse gases can save money, but Mr. Lloyd's number-crunching goes much further, with PTAC building a business case for the oil patch to reduce its emissions by 29 megatonnes.

The essential thrust is this: Spend up to $4-billion in five years to save a billion every year, with environmental outlays paying for themselves after no more than four years, and as few as four months. Those expenditures would not only save money, they'd also meet the cutoff point the industry uses to assess the profitability of projects that produce oil and gas, meaning that a company would be better off after meeting its greenhouse gas target than if it had left the money in the bank.

Most of the savings, $780-million, would come from reducing energy use in the exploration and production end of the industry, with such expenditures paying for themselves in less than three years. Reducing fugitive emissions, which are unplanned but small gas leaks during transport and processing, would save another $141-million a year -- and those cuts would pay for themselves in just four to six months, PTAC says.

Reducing leakage from natural gas storage would save $21-million a year, because the resource could then be sold for a profit. Similarly, reducing the flaring and venting of natural gas by 25 per cent would not only eliminate three megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, it would save $68-million a year.

PTAC's numbers could even be on the conservative side, because they don't take into account the most recent runup in natural gas prices.

Also, if the oil patch were truly able to attain 29 megatonnes in reductions, it's possible that some companies would be in a position to sell emissions credits.

The industry agrees on some of these points, particularly on the benefits of reduced flaring and venting.

Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, says the recent increase in commodity prices means the economics are now tilting toward capturing that gas, rather than wasting it.

But he questions PTAC's larger assertion that the industry can turn a profit from reducing greenhouse gases. Some producers that have recently spent billions on machinery and equipment would be at a severe disadvantage if they were to immediately scrap it in favour of a slightly newer version -- in essence, paying the same bill twice, Mr. Alvarez says. If governments want older equipment replaced more quickly, he says, they should rejig capital cost allowances to spur such expenditures. However, even such measures have their limits, Mr. Alvarez says. "You do hit a point where you reach the limit of technology and economics."

Mr. Lloyd has no illusions that the oil and gas industry is about to become a Kyoto enthusiast, saying it has been a struggle to win people in Calgary over to his point of view. Although investments in emissions-reduction technologies will turn a profit, it will not be as big as that to be had from exploring for and producing oil and gas, he says. "They have bigger fish to fry."

And even this self-described environmental pragmatist says five years will be needed to achieve the targets he lays out -- leaving the industry very little leeway to meet Kyoto objectives.

Mr. Lloyd says he believes Canada is not likely to meet the letter of Kyoto's law, but it is necessary to start reducing greenhouse gases, even if the means and technology to do so may not be entirely clear at the moment.

"If you decide to go to the moon, you'll get there."

Billion-dollar savings

Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada says oil companies could save more than $1-billion a year by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Here are the steps to those savings:

$21-million from reducing losses from the storage of natural gas by 25 per cent.

$68-million from reducing natural gas flaring and venting by 25 per cent, and selling the gas instead.

$141-million from a 75-per-cent cut in fugitive emissions, which are unplanned but small leaks during transport and processing.

$780-million

MacNutt
Feb 18th, 2005, 02:21 AM
Quick reality check here:

1-Nothing in the Kyoto Accord will actually have any real effect on actual world levels of ANY polloutants. It deals only with carbon levels and only in the most ephemeral ways. Ten years after this day, the atmosphere of this planet will be exactly where it was. Or worse.

2-Nothing that we humans can do will actually affect the natural, and not very well understood, weather cycles of this planet. Good bad or otherwise. The only scientists that actually think we CAN (or have) are the very same ones who are looking to get big grants to "study this in greater depth". The rest are dismissing the whole thing in no uncertain terms. Which brings me to point number 3.

3-In the light of record cold winters and less than record heat waves during recent summers, the major proponents of this movement have carefully changed the name of the supposed effect from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".

Guess what? "Global Climate Change" is the NORM for this particular planet. In fact, RADICAL and RAPID global climate change is the real norm. The evidence of this is clearly written in the rocks right beneath your feet.

And somebody thinks they can actually CHANGE this? If so...how? What arrogance!

4-If Canada ceased to emit ALL greenhouse gasses tomorrow and the whole population of this country vanished overnight...it would only lessen measured atmospheric polloution levels by 2%. Wow.

Our actual Canadian "commitment" to Kyoto is a tiny fraction of this tiny fraction. Double wow.

5-The Federal Liberals, as usual, have NO actual plans in hand to implement any of the Kyoto Accord. None. Zero. Zip.

All they have is a bunch of hot air and empty rehtoric. No actual plans.

Perhaps we could do our part to eliminate excess hot air by placing a dome over Ottawa and locking the door to it. THAT, at least, might have a positive effect for some of us...although the planet will continue to heat and cool just as it always has.

6-If this flawed mess IS actually adopted by Canada and implemented...a big question, despite everything you may have heard...then many of our heavy industries (like auto factories, for instance) will be forced to spend huge amounts of their ready cash to purchase "Carbon Credits" from countries like Russia in order to stay in operation. This should make them even more competitive than they already are, don't you think? Especially with the rapidly rising Loonie.

Or not.

Want to bet that GM and Ford et al will just shift production a few miles over to the Detroit factories...you know, the one's that are NOT affected by the Jyoto regs?

Think about it.

7-China and India...both hugely industrialised and accounting for almost HALF of the population on this planet...are NOT part of the Kyoto Accord. Want to bet that they won't see this as a major advantage, while they continue to polloute at will? And will take every opportunity to USE this advantage while they "catch up" to the developed western societies?

Gee...do ya THINK??

I won't even get into the rapid rise in fuel costs and the resultant rise in the cost of practically EVERYTHING that we Canadians consume on a daily basis that will result if we actually implement even a portion of this flawed mess.

While not doing a damn thing to affect atmospheric temperatures or polloution levels in any way shape or form.

Luckily...this current minority Liberal Government won't survive much longer. Neither will the already watered down and failing Kyoto Accord.

Once they are both gone, then maybe wqe can all get together and come up with a REAL government and some REAL plans to fix up our little part of the world.

And learn to accept the simple fact that this good green earth has a mind of it's own when it comes to temperature levels.

We are just along for the ride.

PosterBoy
Feb 18th, 2005, 03:27 AM
In the light of record cold winters and less than record heat waves during recent summers, the major proponents of this movement have carefully changed the name of the supposed effect from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change".


As a point of interest, the reason scientists don't call it "Global Warming" anymore is that it has always been an inaccurate term for the situation. In fact, many have been saying that for a long, long time.

The problem isn't that the Earth is getting warmer, in fact compared even to some of the previous interglacial periods the Earth is quite cool right now. The problem is the rapidity with which the the climate is changing. Compared to nearly all the collected data from previous interglacial periods and the times before that, the climate is warming at an increased rate. The problem with this is that many forms of life, while adaptable, can't keep up with the current rate.

And if you don't think that the Earth is warmer now than it was, say, 10 years ago, why can't i skate on the lakes on Salt Spring in the winter anymore?

If this flawed mess IS actually adopted by Canada and implemented...a big question, despite everything you may have heard...then many of our heavy industries (like auto factories, for instance) will be forced to spend huge amounts of their ready cash to purchase "Carbon Credits" from countries like Russia in order to stay in operation.

Canada will have to buy them, not the companies themselves. The cost will most assuredly be pass on, but as a lump sum? Considering how many tax cuts and deferrals many of the companies already get, I doubt it.

China and India...both hugely industrialised and accounting for almost HALF of the population on this planet...are NOT part of the Kyoto Accord.

China and India have both ratified Kyoto. You know those sources you're never willing to link to or talk about? You might want to start checking them a little more closely.

MacNutt
Feb 18th, 2005, 04:07 AM
China and India have ratified Kyoto?? And are prepared to implement the regulations???

News to me!

Probably news to the Chinese environmental protesters who were on tonight's evening news. Loudly demanding that their country agree to go along with Kyoto.

Got any data or references to back this up PosterBoy?

As for your reference to "skating on the frozen lakes of Salt Spring"....

This is the crux of our misconception. The terribly short lifespan of the human animal when compared to planetary time. We are but a twitch of nature's eyelash.

When I first went to work in the oilpatch, the winters in the far north were MUCH colder and more brutal than they are now. Then they got warmer. Then they got colder. Now, they are warmer. Sort of. Mostly.

When my grandmother was a young girl out here on the west coast, she told me that she could swim in the ocean well into october and it was as warm as a bath. They used to raise cabbages all year round up at the northern tip of Vancouver Island because it was so warm. Later on...they had to move south because it got cold.

In 1985, when I moved to Salt Spring, the winter was so cold and snowy that no one could get around at all and the power was off for days. Same thing happened in 1996. Same thing happened this year, in 2005. Between those times, we had warm sunny winter days. Virtually no snow at all.

And I have personally seen and logged geological samples at wellsite that show massive and terribly rapid temperature changes. We are talking arctic to tropical and back again in amatter of a few months or weeks. It's a matter of scientific record that this has happened hundreds of times over the past several million years...long before mankind ever set foot on this planet.

There are paintings of people skating on the river Thames in England. But the Rennaissance is largely thought to be at least partly as a result of a warming trend in Northern Europe in the 15th century. There was a "little ice age" in the 17th century. There are flash frozen Mammoths in Siberia. Cold weather critters who were frozen so suddenly that they are perfectly preserved. LOTS of them, BTW.

All of this is clear evidence of sudden changes in global temperature. NONE of it was man made.

Every time you see some old-timer remarking on the evening news about a sudden flood or major storm and saying "..I've lived here for forty years and I've never seen anything like this!"....just remember that he'd have to have lived in the same place for four HUNDRED years before he had even the ghost of a sense of the real pattern of things.

And maybe not even then. We just don't live long enough to get a real sense of it.

But the rocks don't lie. ;)

IronMac
Feb 18th, 2005, 05:39 AM
China and India have ratified Kyoto?? And are prepared to implement the regulations???

News to me!

Probably news to the Chinese environmental protesters who were on tonight's evening news. Loudly demanding that their country agree to go along with Kyoto.



A lot of things are probably news to you if you bothered to look around. Here's a link to China's approval...and they are not going to implement until 2012.

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/news-article-China-Kyoto-Protocol.html

As for the rest of your reality check...I'll come back later on to give you a reality check. Flash frozen mammoths...hahaha...btw, we already dealt with that earlier. Check it out...or not. ;)

MacNutt
Feb 18th, 2005, 06:06 AM
Right...China will not implement the Kyoto Accord until well into the next decade. ;)

That would be right about the same time that they would be well-established as the biggest single economic force on the whole planet, right? When no one, or no combination, of other countries could POSSIBLY muster the sort of economic pressure to force them to comply. Right?

Whereas...at THIS point in time we COULD actually force both China and India and ALL of the other nations to comply, by simply refusing to trade with them. Especially if we had a REALISTIC set of polloution controls in place? Ones that addressed real polloution levels, instead of the silly notion of altering the panets natural climactic cycles by buying and selling "Carbon Credits" among each other.

They are still "emerging" right now. They will be well ahead of us, seven years hence. And not beholden to anyone. Anywhere.

We need to dump this silly Kyoto Accord and come up with something REAL. WE need to do it NOW. There is no time to waste. We certainly won't have the same pull a decade from now.

You think that the Americans are worldwide bullies striding across the planet and running roughshod over everything? Buddy...you aint seen NOTHIN yet! Just wait till China is running the show.

Stop and think about it, Ironmac. And all the rest of you. Think hard about it.

It's important.

IronMac
Feb 18th, 2005, 07:55 AM
Right...China will not implement the Kyoto Accord until well into the next decade. ;)

That would be right about the same time that they would be well-established as the biggest single economic force on the whole planet, right? When no one, or no combination, of other countries could POSSIBLY muster the sort of economic pressure to force them to comply. Right?

Whereas...at THIS point in time we COULD actually force both China and India and ALL of the other nations to comply, by simply refusing to trade with them. Especially if we had a REALISTIC set of polloution controls in place? Ones that addressed real polloution levels, instead of the silly notion of altering the panets natural climactic cycles by buying and selling "Carbon Credits" among each other.

They are still "emerging" right now. They will be well ahead of us, seven years hence. And not beholden to anyone. Anywhere.

We need to dump this silly Kyoto Accord and come up with something REAL. WE need to do it NOW. There is no time to waste. We certainly won't have the same pull a decade from now.


So, you now accept the fact that China has agreed to implement the Accord in seven years. Good! At least that's one point down.

But, it also looks like you don't believe that they will comply. What makes you think that? I guess if you look at the example of the biggest contributer to greenhouse gases on Earth at the moment (hint: they're just south of us) then you might be correct.

Tell us...what would you consider a REAL plan? With REALISTIC controls? I'm sure that you've thought about it...so what is it?

Eukaryotic
Feb 18th, 2005, 08:04 AM
I have done a fair amount of work on carbon dynamics and also how they relate to Kyoto. It is my belief that Kyoto has some interesting mechanisms in it that will could lead to further CO2 reductions in the future. Articles 3.3. and 3.4 of the protocol come to mind. These articles relate to sequestering carbon through terrestrial biomass. I don't think that lowering emissions by 6% below 1990 levels will do much globally considering the steady rise in emissions around the world.

MacNutt: please elaborate on these geological samples that show "rapid" swings in temperature. How do you correlate sediment with temperature? That's impressive.



:D

PosterBoy
Feb 18th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Got any data or references to back this up PosterBoy?

I'd just like to point out first that it's bloody comical that you'd ask for a reference from me, or anyone, when you so stoutly refuse to provide any of your own for anyone, anytime.

I looked it up. You should try that sometime. In fact, why don't you try it <i>right</i> now? I suggest eaching for "Kyoto Protocol" on Wikipedia.org, and seeing what comes up. That'd be a good place to start.

All of this is clear evidence of sudden changes in global temperature. NONE of it was man made.

Here is a graph of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GIS_Global_1880_2005.gif">average temperatures over the last century</a>. You're right, there are a lot of swings up and down in the short term. However, the average temperature has pretty much always been on the upswing.

You're also right that it's not man made. Man aided would probably be more accurate. The Earth, by all the evidence, and as I already pointed out, used to be a whole lot warmer. The problem now isn't the fact that it's getting warmer, it's the rate at which it is getting warmer.

Here is a graph of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png">9 separate reconstructions of the average global temperature over the last 1000 years</a>

You might also want to read through some articles on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 02:29 AM
Ummmm...I have done some pretty deep reading on this subject ever since my contention that China is not bound by the Kyoto Accord was called loudly into question by PosterBoy.

Know what I've found?

China is STILL not bound by any real environmental restraints. And doesn't look like it's going to be, any time soon, either. Same with such industrial giants as the USA, India or Brasil. Which, along with China, account for about half (or more) of all the people on this planet.

Check this very recent article before you read any farther.http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=2b290e66-c271-4bbb-bdf9-ffba5fee0e0f

This is just one single article...but it is saying pretty much what all the rest of them are. And that is this:

-Kyoto is horribly flawed.
-Only 35 out of the 140 countries that have signed onto Kyoto will actually have to reduce their emissions
-Even those 35 will not really have to reduce their emissions by any noticeble amount. Mostly they will just be trading hot air credits to the less developed nations. A transfer of wealth...not a real attempt to limit polloution levels.
-Most scientists are still not in agreement that this current "warming trend" (if it really IS a trend and not just bad data or an anomaly) is because of human activity.
-Most scientists DO agree than anything we humans can actually do will NOT affect the trend...if it even is a trend.
-The costs for this flurry on non-activity on ephemeral goals will be ENORMOUS for the handful of nations who ARE planning on following the Accord to the letter. While not actually affecting polloution levels at all.

Canada will be one of the worst hit by this silly and expensive mess, mostly due to the power requirements of our northern climate. And because of our currently healthy Auto industry. One that sits just across a border from a country that is NOT a signatory to Kyoto, BTW. Our petroleum industry is one of the biggest on the whole continent...and is a huge source of tax revenue for our social programs. It will be hugely and negatively affected by Kyoto, as well.

IF it is actually implemented.

Luckily, we have the Federal Liberals in charge of the show right now. Temporarily.

And we all know how terribly BAD they are at actually planning and implementing huge government programs.

I just hope they don't waste or steal too many billions of tax dollars before they either abandon the whole program or are defeated and tossed from power.

Keep your fingers crossed. ;)

PosterBoy
Feb 21st, 2005, 03:34 AM
Called loudly into contention? They signed and ratified it. They aren't implementing it now, but they are in the future. Same goes for India. Whup do freakin' do. You seem to forget that I am not exactly a loud supporter of Kyoto as anything other than a stepping stone to something greater.

Regarding the scientific consensus on climate change, though, I thought I'd point out a few places you ust have missed in your "deep reading" on the subject:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Second Assessment Report (SAR), 1995:
[O]ur ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long term variability…. (emphasis added)

IPCC, Third Assessment Report (TAR), 2001:
In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. (emphasis added)

US National Research Council, 2001:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.[...]

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. (emphasis added)

American Meteorological Society, 2003:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change. [...]

Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders.

You also must have missed this 2004 survey (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) which analysed over 900 scientific papers on the subject and found that ~75% of them either explicitly or implicitly agreed with consensus (that human activity has impact), and ~25% took no position, and 0% rejected the consensus position.

Where exactly were you reading about the scientific communities consensus position, anyway?

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 03:48 AM
China and India signed and ratified the Kyoyo Accord? In what way, pray tell? When?

Everything I've managed to find out says that, even if they have signed it (and I haven't seen anything to confirm that they have), they wouldn't have to actually reduce their emissions levels due to it's convoluted nature. Neither would Brasil or Mexico or the USA.

All of them are industrial powerhouse nations with large populations. All together they make up about half of the population on the planet. The biigest industrial nations on this earth, by all accounts. And likely to get MUCH bigger once we few nations who ARE actually implementing Kyoto begin to hit our home grown industries with the new costs.

Some will comply. At first. Most will simply move rather than take the big hit. All will have to compete with the big powerhouse nations who AREN"T affected by the controls.

In what blessed way is this supposed to do ANYTHING to lower polloution levels? ANYWHERE??

As for altering the temperature of the atmosphere? With only 35 of the smallish countries (out of 170 or so) who will only be swapping hot air credits with the huge majority of the other unaffected countries??? Instead of doing anything REAL???

THIS is supposed to help??

Not a chance. Don't make me laugh.

PosterBoy
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:05 AM
China and India signed and ratified the Kyoyo Accord? In what way, pray tell? When?

Sorry, India didn't sign, but a signature on the agreement is not required to ratify it (signing is a purely symbolic gesture), but here are the choice snippets from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

At the treaty's implementation in February 2005, the agreement had been ratified by 141 countries, representing over 61% of emissions. Countries do not need to sign the protocol in order to ratify it: signing is a symbolic act only. [...]

As of February [1st,] 2005, 139 countries (plus the self-governing entities of New Zealand - Niue and Cook Islands) have ratified the protocol, including Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and the twenty-five countries of the European Union, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:09 AM
Didn't actually sign, won't ratify, and will be eagerly awaiting the arrival of all of the manufacturing orders from the ones who did. You know...the ones who will very soon be clamping down HARD on their own home grown industries and chasing them out with skyrocketing costs. In order to "implement" Kyoto?

The many industrial giants who are not signatories to Kyoto, or who are not required to implement any changes, are standing by and watching the rest of us right now. While smiling publicly and saying "Yes...Kyoto GOOD!".

No wonder.

Wake up Matt. You are smarter than that.

IronMac
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:27 AM
Didn't actually sign, won't ratify, and will be eagerly awaiting the arrival of all of the manufacturing orders from the ones who did.

The many industrial giants who are not signatories to Kyoto, or who are not required to implement any changes, are standing by and watching the rest of us right now.

Where do you not understand the part that you do not need to sign it in order to ratify it? :confused:

BTW, industrial giants are not extragovernmental the last time I checked, they cannot sign international treaties such as Kyoto even if they wanted to.

IronMac
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:29 AM
Instead of doing anything REAL???



So, as I asked before...what would YOU suggest. Enough of this empty posturing...put up or shut up. ;)

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:44 AM
If the country doesn't ratify, or ever intend to implement any of the expensive and costly reforms, then what on this good green earth would EVER make their industrial giants voluntarily adopt this silly mess?

Especially since it is practically guaranteed to do NOTHING but cost money??

They will simply smile and nod and welcome our fleeing manufacturing capacity with open arms...while saying to themselves "advantage MINE" :mad:

Once they have that total advantage, and we are weakened beyond repair, then they can do whatever they want to, without fear of pressure from us. Because we will have lost the last lever of power that we ever had over them.

Maybe they will eventually ratify and implement Kyoto. Maybe not.

Want to bet on it?

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:45 AM
Again...wake up!

(Man, I'd love to play poker with you guys. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.) ;) :D

IronMac
Feb 21st, 2005, 07:11 AM
...I take it that the answer to the question of whether or not you yourself have a "realistic" plan is a resounding...NO? ;)

SINC
Feb 21st, 2005, 08:17 AM
While I take issue with the Liberals implementing Kyoto with no firm plan, I do have some sympathy for them.

After all, how can you plan the impossible? :D

MacNutt
Feb 21st, 2005, 02:29 PM
Ironmac...
The first step is to abandon a plan that has no plan...it just makes people feel like they are doing "something positive".

The next step is to abandon any idea that we can actually affect the overall temperature of our planetary atmosphere. Especially by trading carbon credits amongst a few of the smaller industrial societies on this earth and while the biggest ones just keep on pumping out all manners of crap.

Once THAT is done, then we all need to sit down and hammer out a real plan for cleaning up each of our own areas as best we can. And we need to all agree that if any one of us fails at this, or ignores the new regs, then none of the rest of us will trade with them until they do comply.

THAT might have a chance of helping the polloution problem. Especially in the most heavily industrialised areas.

The planet will continue to heat and cool all by itself. No matter what we do. Accept that fact and we might just be on the road to making the air and water a lot cleaner with some realistic goals. Ones we can all agree to abide by.

That's my plan.

IronMac
Feb 21st, 2005, 03:48 PM
The next step is to abandon any idea that we can actually affect the overall temperature of our planetary atmosphere.

Since you don't recognize that the consensus of scientists today is that humans are having an effect on the climate there really is no possibility of further discussion.

PosterBoy
Feb 21st, 2005, 04:27 PM
And we need to all agree that if any one of us fails at this, or ignores the new regs, then none of the rest of us will trade with them until they do comply.

Ignoring the fact that don't recognise the consensus about human influence on the global environment, I have a question about this point.

How exactly do you think it would work if, say, Canada had to stop trading with the US? The US had to stop trading with Japan? Any of the EU countries had to stop trading with other EU countries?

It pretty much wouldn't, because in all of these instances the countries are so closely and heavily tied to one another that they <i>can't</i> stop.

So how is your idea any better than Kyoto?

MacNutt
Feb 26th, 2005, 03:22 AM
Canada, the USA, and the European countries and Japan, especially Japan...are acutely aware of the polloution problems we currently face.

They would, by all accounts, be the very FIRST countries to step up to the plate and sign on to some pretty overdue polloution standards.

So...there is NO reason to think that all of the rest of us would ever have to stop trading with them.

But China is another case entirely. That massive country...one that has almost one quarter of ALL the people on the planet...is a terrible pollouter. And is getting worse every single day.

Force China ,at this very pivotal point in it's leap forward, to conform to a set of worldwide standards for both particulate and gaseous emissions, by using what levers of trade that we still posess...and you'd really be making a serious difference.

Leave China out of the picture, as Kyoto does, and nothing...NOTHING the rest of us actively attempt to do to fix up our environment will EVER have any real effect on the overall situation.

Simple as that.

used to be jwoodget
Feb 26th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Why the focus on China? The USA is the largest global polluter by virtually all criteria yet it refuses to sign on to Kyoto. Ironically, the USA also has the wherewithall to implement massive emissions reduction.

PosterBoy
Feb 26th, 2005, 08:31 PM
You still haven't answered my question, you've just avoided it. Do you really think that countries like Canada, the USA, etc, can ever stop trading with china? A lot, a whole lot, of goods flow out of that country and into pretty much every other country around.

Plus, you're ignoring the fact that China is not the big problem in the Kyoto equation, the USA is (being the biggest polluter and the biggest economic power). If the USA would sign on, things could fall into place. Since they don't, they don't.

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 02:08 AM
Unless I am mistaken, China has just recently surpassed the United States on practically every level of economic activity except auto production. Given the fact that China has NO polloution controls at all (and the USA does)...then we can expect the 1.3 BILLION Chinese to rapidy leave the 300 million Americans in their pollouted wake rather soon. If they haven't already.

Consider this...China could instantly lose ONE BILLION people from it's population...and STILL be larger than the USA. And more prone to pollouting the planetary atmosphere as well.

We won't even discuss India here. Which has another BILLION people. And has no polloution controls.

Neither of these rapidly expanding industrial giants will be covered by the Kyoto Accord anytime soon. Perhaps never.

So, my question is this:

Why not scrap this silly excersize in trading cabon credits between smallish countries while the vast majority continue to polloute at will (which is a bit like the emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burns)...and set up a brand new Accord that will deal with REAL polloution levels in every jurisdiction? You know...ones that will actually make a real difference in our daily lives. ;)

THEN we all sign on to them. And collectively refuse to trade ANYTHING with any country that doesn't abide by these new regs.

I'm bettin that there might be a fast scramble to clean up certain really bad areas of the world all of a sudden, in order to continue the lucrative international trade that is fuelling their newfound prosperity. Which would be loudly cheered by pretty much everyone toiling away in those smog-laden areas.

Kyoto, on the other hand, won't clean up anything. It's a complete waste of energy and resources and only serves to delay a real solution to the actual problem at hand.

Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with "Global warming" or whatever they are calling it these days. ("Global Climate Change"? "Worldwide Weather Anomalies"? "Standard Operating Procedure for Mother Earth"? Or are they just calling it "BOB" now?)

We need a brand new set of universally accepted standards for polloution. Japan and Europe would be first in line to sign up. So would Canada. The USA would as well...as long as it was a real plan and not just some pie-in-the-sky economic redisribution effort like the horibly flawed and completely useless Kyoto Accord.

It's high time we dumped Kyoto and got on with something REAL instead.

Something that might actually have a chance of working. ;)

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 27th, 2005, 02:41 AM
if we were to put a gag on you macnutt i think we could reach our national target for hot air reduction ;)

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 02:57 AM
Might make a difference. Might not. Might just make your chosen ideology a little easier to stomach if people like me would just shut up and stop pointing out the facts to all of you. Pesky facts that they are. ;) :D

Now...care to deal with the real situation and make some constructive suggestions?

I await your carefully considered reply on this subject. So do many others, I'll bet.;)

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 27th, 2005, 03:10 AM
like ironmac and posterboy, i have a problem with you blowing off the consensus among scientists that global warming is a very real phenomenon, and i think that until you address that with some proof there really isn't much point in continuing, as ironmac pointed out.

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 04:22 AM
Lame. Totally lame.

The so-called "consensus" is hardly that. Especially when you note that the many famous names that have signed on to this are all mining for bigtime grant money to actively "study the problem" right now.

While the vast majority of meterologists et al are busily telling all of us that we don't have nearly enough data to draw any firm conclusions about "Global Warming". Or are you guys calling it "Global Climate change" these days?

Or are you calling it "Bob" or something...now that we are no longer breaking any planetary records for high or low temperatures. And now that almost twenty thousand scientists have joined in to cry foul on this whole silly self-serving mess of bad data.

Consider the following:

-The famous "hockey-stick" temperature graph that supposedly shows recent global warming has now been exposed as a total fraud...by Canadian scientists, no less. (the original graph was built using a program that selected for upwards anaomalies...and tossed out all other data. Pure bunk)

-We humans have only been keeping detailed weather records for an embarassingly short period of time. About a hundred years or so. Mostly less. That is an eyeblink in planetary history. (On a planet that, BTW, is known for having had many radical weather and temperature shifts...long before mankind ever appeared on the scene.)

And we have been taking those recent temperature readings from weather stations that are located just adjacent to our major cities. For just a bit longer than one single human lifetime.

I wonder if those adjacent cities might not skew the temperature data towards the warm side. Especially as they grow to several times their original size and become more populated with internal combustion engines and electrical gear. ....Over the past hundred years or so.

Gee...do ya THINK? :eek: ;) :D

Time to come back to earth, guys. ;) :D

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 04:34 AM
Oh yeah....one more thing here....

Satellite temperature data, which is about thirty years old and is totally independant from the temperature anomlies that are often located in close proximity to major cities (where all of the weather stations are), shows NO atmospheric or planetary temperature rise whatsoever.

None. ZERO. Zip.

Just the usual ups and downs of good old planet earth.

Go figure. ;) :D

Snapple Quaffer
Feb 27th, 2005, 04:43 AM
A poor grasp of science and a puppy-like eagerness to lean in the direction of any predilections of your wee cowboy hero in the White House will always let you down Mr. McNutt.

So because India and China are going to pollute like hell, let's all pollute like hell, eh? Sound.

Choke me on that one!

Now. What is your estimable analysis of the page quoted below? (There are many more.)

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/global_temp.html

Reason. It's always got to be reason. It's what separates us from barbarism.

To put my post in a wider context, I actually find you very entertaining. You might yet be one of the greatest living satirists of our age.

On Fe. 16th, Caillou posted this:

In a gush of enthousiasm to do our share in support of the Kyoto protocol, our family has decided top stop farting.

Now let's all try to get the Chinese and Indians to stop farting too.

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 04:56 AM
Satire? Not bloody likely. :mad:

I like my clean air and clean water. That's why I have chosen to live in a place that has an abundance of this. Instead of living in some fetid sewer like Toronto or Chicago or Los Angeles or the like.

I have a vested interest in keeping this planet clean. Which is why I am so passionate about dumping the horridly flawed Kyoto Accord and replacing it with something that actually covers ALL of the industrialised nations...instead of just a small portion of them. While allowing all of the others to polloute at will.

Wake up. And please do it soon...we don't have a moment to waste on this. :(

IronMac
Feb 27th, 2005, 05:39 AM
Lame. Totally lame.

What's lame is the fact that you never bring anything to the table besides rhetoric.



The so-called "consensus" is hardly that. Especially when you note that the many famous names that have signed on to this are all mining for bigtime grant money to actively "study the problem" right now.



Ahhh...shades of Crichton...I suggest that you check out www.realclimate.org for a refreshing look at what the consensus is. Although I doubt that you will...typical modus operandi...you say things but you can never reference them.



While the vast majority of meterologists et al are busily telling all of us that we don't have nearly enough data to draw any firm conclusions about "Global Warming". Or are you guys calling it "Global Climate change" these days?

Actually, I will stick with "global warming" since that is what the trend seems to be. I'm not afraid to stick my neck out and admit that I can be wrong. Unlike some people here....



Or are you calling it "Bob" or something...now that we are no longer breaking any planetary records for high or low temperatures. And now that almost twenty thousand scientists have joined in to cry foul on this whole silly self-serving mess of bad data.

This ought to be good...please oh please reference where you get these 20k scientists.


-The famous "hockey-stick" temperature graph that supposedly shows recent global warming has now been exposed as a total fraud...by Canadian scientists, no less. (the original graph was built using a program that selected for upwards anaomalies...and tossed out all other data. Pure bunk)

A. Canadian scientists? I believe one is a retired economist and the other is a geologist.
B. Numerous other studies, including the methodology used by the Canadians (it's too strong a word to call them "scientists"), do support the hockey-stick.

Misinformation will not give you any credibility...hope you realize that. ;)

And we have been taking those recent temperature readings from weather stations that are located just adjacent to our major cities.

Absolutely untrue.

Well, we got some things to chew on...but it may be unpalatable to our SSI oracle. ;)

IronMac
Feb 27th, 2005, 05:39 AM
Oh yeah....one more thing here....

Satellite temperature data, which is about thirty years old and is totally independant from the temperature anomlies that are often located in close proximity to major cities (where all of the weather stations are), shows NO atmospheric or planetary temperature rise whatsoever.


But oceanographic data does.

MacNutt
Feb 27th, 2005, 06:04 AM
No, actually it doesn't. But I wouldn't expect you to take five minutes to override your programming to admit it..

That would be totally out of character for you, Ironmac.

Even though you are now abandoning all of your previous predictions about the middle east....and have quite a bit of spare time on your hands as a result of this.

(It must be tough to have to publicly admit how totally wrong you were on this subject. Which is probably why you are now ignoring these threads, and spending you time on other subjects. I feel for you, old buddy.) ;) :D

IronMac
Feb 27th, 2005, 08:24 AM
No, actually it doesn't. But I wouldn't expect you to take five minutes to override your programming to admit it..

Yes it does. I am going to assume that you are talking about oceanographic data so check out this link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html


Even though you are now abandoning all of your previous predictions about the middle east....

I've asked this before (typically, you've ignored) but what previous predictions am I abandoning???


(It must be tough to have to publicly admit how totally wrong you were on this subject. Which is probably why you are now ignoring these threads, and spending you time on other subjects.

LOL!!! I can't begin to enumerate how many other threads you've abandoned when you've been proven wrong! LOL!!!

TroutMaskReplica
Feb 27th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Lame. Totally lame.

i asked you to prove the thesis of your argument with a link or something tangible and you responded with more bullsh*t.

that's lame, my friend. the only one brainwashed here is you, by your neocon ideology and apparently, the oil and gas industry.

Eukaryotic
Feb 27th, 2005, 01:23 PM
MacNutt 'outed' himself a while back in similar threads. He stated a few times about how geological cores he had taken proved that earth climate had, in the past, changed from hot to cold and vice versa in a matter of minutes, hours, etc.

Anyone who has done any kind of sediment work, or paleoclimate research *ahem* can tell you that this type of information cannot be obtained from sediment cores. The way one reconstructs climate records from sediment is by particle size or fossils. It's proxy data, and tells you very little about absolute temperatures. Generally, the finest temporal scale you can achieve by the method is on a seasonal basis. Furthermore, the sediment is used more to reconstruct fluvial conditions, i.e., flow velocities, not temperature. He's way off base...but he's never responded to my points.

E

IronMac
Mar 10th, 2005, 05:13 AM
MacNutt 'outed' himself a while back in similar threads. He stated a few times about how geological cores he had taken proved that earth climate had, in the past, changed from hot to cold and vice versa in a matter of minutes, hours, etc.

Anyone who has done any kind of sediment work, or paleoclimate research *ahem* can tell you that this type of information cannot be obtained from sediment cores. The way one reconstructs climate records from sediment is by particle size or fossils. It's proxy data, and tells you very little about absolute temperatures. Generally, the finest temporal scale you can achieve by the method is on a seasonal basis. Furthermore, the sediment is used more to reconstruct fluvial conditions, i.e., flow velocities, not temperature. He's way off base...but he's never responded to my points.

E

Hey, MacNutt...it's unlike you to ignore challenges like this. ;)

MacNutt
Mar 12th, 2005, 02:29 AM
I was away. Work and buisness concerns beckoned. So did the amazingly warm summery spring weather. So sorry.

The sedimentary rocks that we drill into to locate hydrocarbon deposits have a wealth of information locked into them. Organic materials, plant and animal fossils, trapped gases, mineral deposits that indicate both climate and the presence of fresh or sea water. Plus lots more.

It was my job at wellsite to analyse that data and to try and make some sense of it all. To do this I used several different instruments, including a cutting edge gas chromatograph that had been specially modified (it was originally built by MTI for medical use) and a purpose-built portable mass spectrometer.

I also used a very high powered stero microscope with a lighting system that was specially built for the purpose. I worked alongside masters degree geologists and micro paleontologists and together we of the mobile earth sciences laboratory managed to deduce precisely where we were on the geological timeline at any point in the drilling program. Right down to the half meter in stratigraphical depth. Even down to the half foot or less, in some instances.

A whole bunch of the methods that we used to accomplish this are considered to be highly guarded trade secrets...the better any wellsite testing company is at locating the precise geological timeline, the more likely they will be able to guide the drillbit into the pay zone (and keep it there on a horizontal drilling program), and the better that company will be paid. Our outfit was in huge demand, because of our highly sucessful and accurate methods.

And we got paid loads of cash to do this. Obscene amounts, really.

We'd have gotten SFA if we were just guessing. Accuracy is all, in the oil biz.
And trust me when I say that I have personally seen the geological evidence of massive and rapid shifts from tropical to arctic and back again in the earth's crust. Hundreds and hundreds of times. Over and over again.

And from LONG before mankind ever fired up the very first industrial furnace.

This rapid "global climate change" thing is the absolute norm for this planet. Not the exception.

And it's been going on quite regularly, for ages. Millennia, in fact.

So try not to freak out and demand that we shut down all civilisation when it happens again.

Just deal with it. It's inevitable. ;) :D

IronMac
Mar 12th, 2005, 04:40 AM
Yes yes...but get to where the part where the info shows that climate change.

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 02:39 AM
Not sure what you are getting at here Ironmac. :confused:

The fact that the earth has experienced massive and rapid climate shifts many many times in the past is well known. So is the fact that ALL of these rapid climate shifts occurred long before mankind became industrialised. This is high school stuff.

If you want me to present to you some carefully logged evidence of just how quick these shifts can take place or how often we recorded them...then you'll have to contact my former employer and ask to see their extensive well log library. This data costs a bundle to dig out of the earth and record. Consequently, they charge a bundle if you want to look at it. Unless you are drilling for hydrocarbons and contract them to do the wellsite consulting on your upcoming "play" (drilling program).

If you do THAT...then all of this wealth of data from their extensive library will be open to you in the form of "offsets" (nearby past-drilled wells). But you may have to pony up a million or two.

Just for starters. :D

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 02:56 AM
Note:there are publicly available well log libraries (university of Alberta?), but I'm not sure how acccurate any of the data is. In the old days they didn't have the sort of high tech gear that we have been using lately. (For example...the purpose-built mass spectrometer that I was using in the field was only the second one that had ever been deployed, as far as I know. Anywhere.)

Also...micro-paleontologists (we call them "bug Doctors" on the rigs) and mass spectrometers are only deployed to the most promising exploration drilling programs in relatively untried areas (my specialty). Without their data, we have a far more limited idea of what the average mean temperature of any particular stratigraphic zone might have been, at any given time in history.

Having said that, I would be most pleased to personally analyse any well log data that you might come up with in your search. New or old. Free of charge. (my former employer used to charge my services out at 2700 bucks a day. Ten day minimum. That's what it costs to contract for twenty five years of intensive experience in this rareified field.)

Let me know if you are interested in going further on this. Won't cost you a dime for my time, as long as I have some spare time available. PM me if necessary. (I'm serious, BTW.)

IronMac
Mar 14th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Look, just tell us by what methodology you can deduce rapid termperature changes? :confused:

Eukaryotic
Mar 14th, 2005, 08:40 AM
Currently, the only reliable method is gas chromatography performed on a continuous record. Ice cores are the standard data source, not well-logs. You might be familiar with the NOAA project at Vostok station in Antarctica. The core extends over 3.5 km deep representing over 400,000 years of continuous data. CO2 analysis on the gas bubbles clearly shows present-day CO2 levels are indeed at unprecedented levels over the past 420,000 years. The results from Vostok are published in many journals including Nature and Science.

As someone who knows about geology, you will be familiar with the terms unconformity, and discontinuity. Well-logs are discontinous. There may be thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years missing from a log. Changes in sedimentology recorded in a well-log cannot give information on rapid climate change. It may appear rapid at first glance, but what you see is an unconformity representing massive gaps in information. It is possible to record varves (seasonal changes in clay deposits), but this is uncommon for long periods. Temporal changes finer than that have not been reported in the literature using sediment.

E

TroutMaskReplica
Mar 14th, 2005, 08:48 AM
but macnutt was highly paid - surely this fact cannot be ignored. also, his machine was really new and high tech.

then you'll have to contact my former employer and ask to see their extensive well log library.

post the number and one of us will call your former employer ;)

IronMac
Mar 14th, 2005, 06:09 PM
Since you seem to have a few moments right now. :D

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Gas chromatography was only a part of the methods that we used. Care to comment on what sort of isotopic data can be generated by a mass spectrometer? Would you also like to further elucidate on the very continuous sedimentary layers that come from ocean beds? Which is what we are looking for when we drill for oil.

Care also to comment on what may be deduced from the fossilised pollens and micro-organisms that these continuous sea-bed layers contain? Or what those things can tell us about sudden shifts in temperature? :D

I can. ;)

Eukaryotic
Mar 14th, 2005, 07:28 PM
What's the point? Would it make any difference if I continued to state the facts and current scientific concensus and methods on paleoclimatic patterns and reconstruction? I doubt it.

I have spent many past hours identifying and counting fossil pollen grains and freshwater mollusks from lake sediment in Ontario. You probably don't know this, because you didn't have to calculate these kinds of things when looking for hydrocarbon deposits, but the error associated with these surrogate indicators is massive; the reason is because they use proxy data to correlate temperature. Any data using proxy indicators like fossil pollen or other indirect measurements of temperature have errors usually around 5 to 10 degrees. Some species are very robust, and are associated with large ranges. Others are less so, but still require an estimation of temperature to be made, which requires calculation of the error. It's always several degrees in my experience.

What's funny is that these errors are the very thing that anti-Kyoto folk use to state their position that current warming might not be human induced. They make the claim that past temperature errors are so high that it is not possible to say that current warming associated with greenhouse gases did not also happen in the past. You see where all this is going?

It becomes very easy for either side to use past climate patterns, current scientific methodology, and reported results to argue for or against Kyoto. I've never actually posted my own view on Kyoto as a policy, only stated some facts and science. I'm not going to say much more on the subject. I've tried to be as objective as possible using the facts. We all use the same information to make our own interpretations and conclusions.

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 09:56 PM
I don't doubt that the sedimentary layers in the Great Lakes have some noticeable interruptions in their laid down beds. Anytime there is a great flood or a terribly dry period theses land-locked smallish freshwater bodies would suffer from some interruption in the stratigraphic record. Like scrambling the data, I'd expect. Or putting it in a giant blender. No wonder you are not seeing any real continuity. Hard to find any real hard markers in that particular dirt soup. Talk about working in the blind! ;)

Plus...the Great Lakes are a fairly recent phenomenon in geologic time. And I should also point out to you the fact that ice cores are also only indicative of the very latest time periods on this particular planet. Given the fact that the earth has had NO polar ice caps at numerous different periods in it's long geologic history, it's pretty hard to look back very far when studying ice cores. Because the ice wasn't there continously...was it?

But you knew that. Didn't you. ;)

Next question. Next contestant! (this is FUN!) :D

SINC
Mar 14th, 2005, 10:00 PM
Cycles. It all works in cycles. :)

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Pre FRIGGIN cisely, SINC! ;) :D

And we short-lived humans have no real concept of those cycles. No more than a fruitfly has any concept of the greater history of mankind (they only live for a few days, after all).

Heck...we humans have only been keeping really decent weather records of this planet since the thirties or so (about when airplanes became a motivating force). That's barely one human lifetime!

The geologic data clearly indicate that this planet is regularly ravaged by massive and sudden shifts in weather and temperature. It also shifts its magnetic poles with some regularity...which may alter weather patterns in ways that we are only now beginning to explore.

And all of this has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Which is, near as I can tell, quite a bit BEFORE mankind ever lit up the first piece of coal and began to "screw up the atmosphere". ;) :D

Some people here need to deal with this. Let's hope they figure it out eventually. And stop demanding that we shut down all civilisation in a small number of countries (while allowing freedom to polloute at will in most of the others) in order to "solve' what is, quite obviously, the natural weather cycles of this particular planet. ;)

SINC
Mar 14th, 2005, 10:16 PM
Just don't be fooled into thinking we can afford to speed up the cycles. We can't, and THAT is part of the problem. :)

MacNutt
Mar 14th, 2005, 10:29 PM
Don't get me wrong SINC. (Or anyone else, for that matter). I am all for a set of serious polloution controls that should be imposed EQUALLY. On EVERY country and on EVERY industry on this planet! No exceptions! :mad:

Kyoto is a horribly skewed "plan", and it will NOT impose any sort of real polloution controls on the very worst pollouters. Mostly...it just makes some of us feel good about trading nebulous (and largely unverifiable) "carbon credits" amongst each other, while the huge smokestacks continue to belch out masses of filth in the largest and most populous developing areas of the earth.

BAD IDEA! :eek: :mad:

Time to dump this silly mess and get to work on something REAL! Something that might make a real positive change in our own particular airshed, over our own actual living spaces. Something that is signed int law planet-wide. And actually WORKS planet-wide.

And high time to drop the silly notion that we can actually affect the natural weather cycles of this planet by "swapping cabon credits". :mad:

Only the looney left could even conceive of something as silly as this. Or try to ATTEMPT to force the rest of us into yet ANOTHER expensive and useless dead end...while ignoring the real problem and while putting real effective change onto the back burner.

Whata buncha LOONS!! :eek: :mad:

IronMac
Mar 15th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Don't get me wrong SINC. (Or anyone else, for that matter). I am all for a set of serious polloution controls that should be imposed EQUALLY. On EVERY country and on EVERY industry on this planet! No exceptions! :mad:


That's fine but your idea of enforcing this via TRADE is about as loony as any other plan. Note, once again, that one of the biggest polluters on the planet doesn't seem to abide by its trade agreements. Nor does it seem that one of the biggest potential polluters care enough about trade to stop moving ahead with plans to go to war with its biggest trading partner.

If that's not loony then I don't know what is! :eek:

IronMac
Mar 15th, 2005, 05:06 AM
Tell me something, MacNutt...you seem to be so certain that humans have no impact on the climate...you offer a wide range of possibilities but why can't you admit that humans belong in that range?

And, please, don't give me some sort of humans are puny and they can't change something so significant as the argument. I am going to paraphrase a Chinese saying...one man with one spoon cannot move a mountain in his lifetime...but when you have millions of men each with a spoon then you can. :D

Eukaryotic
Mar 15th, 2005, 08:34 AM
I don't doubt that the sedimentary layers in the Great Lakes have some noticeable interruptions in their laid down beds. Anytime there is a great flood or a terribly dry period theses land-locked smallish freshwater bodies would suffer from some interruption in the stratigraphic record. Like scrambling the data, I'd expect. Or putting it in a giant blender. No wonder you are not seeing any real continuity. Hard to find any real hard markers in that particular dirt soup. Talk about working in the blind! ;)

Plus...the Great Lakes are a fairly recent phenomenon in geologic time. And I should also point out to you the fact that ice cores are also only indicative of the very latest time periods on this particular planet. Given the fact that the earth has had NO polar ice caps at numerous different periods in it's long geologic history, it's pretty hard to look back very far when studying ice cores. Because the ice wasn't there continously...was it?

But you knew that. Didn't you. ;)

Next question. Next contestant! (this is FUN!) :D

Thanks, I'll forward your post along to NOAA and the IPCC so they can be enlightened. Maybe they'll abandoned the whole ice core project and go with well-logs! To suggest that an ice core that reveals continuous data going back 420 thousand years through glacial and interglacial periods of the last Ice Age is not as useful as using a well-log to reconstruct past changes in climate is perverse.

By the way:

The Great Lakes are not land-locked. And, I have worked on similar projects all over Canada, not just Ontario.

Eukaryotic
Mar 30th, 2005, 07:53 PM
Oceans extend effects of climate change

Sea levels will rise for centuries, even if we stop burning fossil fuels now.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050314/full/050314-13.html

da_jonesy
Mar 30th, 2005, 08:23 PM
Plus... the Great Lakes are a fairly recent phenomenon in geologic time. And I should also point out to you the fact that ice cores are also only indicative of the very latest time periods on this particular planet. Given the fact that the earth has had NO polar ice caps at numerous different periods in it's long geologic history, it's pretty hard to look back very far when studying ice cores. Because the ice wasn't there continously...was it?


I hate to say it but MacNutt is right about this. The problem with climate change is just that... the climate will change, no matter what we do or don't do the climate will change. It always has, it always will.

Are we having an impact on the climate? Absolutely, however we weren't the first organism to impact the climate and we won't be the last. Should we stop our practices in regards to green house gases? probably wouldn't hurt at this point...

In the end society has to decide on what end do they want to pay for the climate change? Pay for it now by reducing green house gas emissions or pay for it later in remediating inundated coastal areas, dealing with mass migrations of populations and other impacts on agriculture and industry.

IronMac
Mar 30th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I hate to say it but MacNutt is right about this. The problem with climate change is just that... the climate will change, no matter what we do or don't do the climate will change.

No, his contention is that we puny humans have no effect on the climate.

Your post also shows that you seem conflicted between whether or not humans do have an effect.

Are we having an impact on the climate? Absolutely,

da_jonesy
Mar 30th, 2005, 09:01 PM
No, his contention is that we puny humans have no effect on the climate.

Your post also shows that you seem conflicted between whether or not humans do have an effect.

Yeah, I guess I am conflicted...

The world is a much larger more complex (and more importantly much older) system than we give it credit for... I think that Lovelocke was right in his Gaia hypothesis. Given just how really big it is we have a much smaller impact on it than other life-forms like diatoms in the ocean (which are a huge carbon sink).

That being said, living in Southern Ontario... I see that brown haze all too clearly.

IronMac
Mar 31st, 2005, 04:24 AM
The world is a much larger more complex (and more importantly much older) system than we give it credit for... I think that Lovelocke was right in his Gaia hypothesis. Given just how really big it is we have a much smaller impact on it than other life-forms like diatoms in the ocean (which are a huge carbon sink).

That being said, living in Southern Ontario... I see that brown haze all too clearly.

I don't have any doubt that we humans have an effect on the climate. It's not a matter of how few of us there or of how old the system is...it's the fact that we can lever our intelligence and knowledge to do things that would be unimaginable in the case of other creatures.

da_jonesy
Mar 31st, 2005, 08:34 AM
I don't have any doubt that we humans have an effect on the climate. It's not a matter of how few of us there or of how old the system is...it's the fact that we can lever our intelligence and knowledge to do things that would be unimaginable in the case of other creatures.

Oh no, I think it is quite imaginable. As a species we are very adept at wiping out other species.

I just disagree that humanity in general when it comes to climate change has that much of an impact on the whole issue. As it stands we were already coming into a warming period after the last ice age... My guess is that humanity's actions in terms of green house gas output has only a small impact and perhaps has aggravated an issue that was already underway. More importantly are issues around deforestation (which again are huge carbon sinks) you combine that with increased output of green house gases and perhaps we are having an even more aggravating effect on a trend that was already under way.

At this point there are two things to note...

1/. We are half way through our supply of fossil fuels

By all accounts (and of course this is through anecdotal references) we are a peak oil and gas production. Oil reserves are not growing but diminishing. In addition (and this my perception) as oil as a commodity grows more scarce it increases in value. As it increases in value/cost it will naturally be consumed less as less people can afford it.

Don't for a second think I am an apologist or supported of the oil industry. Oil has brought us more harm than good in both environmental terms as well as geopolitical and social terms.

The fact of the matter is we are using it all up and eventually it will be gone (sooner rather than later).

2/. That nature is far more capable of changing the climate than we are.

If the tsunami of Dec26th has taught/shown us anything it is that we truly are insignificant in comparison to the natural environment. Yeah sure we can pollute and deforest to our hearts content but it truly a small amount when compared to what the earth can belch out through a good volcano going off, or the amount of methane that can be released annually through the rumination of the billions of animals that populate the earth.

The fact is that the environment changes, always has always will. I think that what is more important to understand here is that what we are lacking as a society is the ability to adapt to change. There is very little or no foresight in the leadership of our society. And what bothers me is that when the oil runs out and the sea level has risen 5-10 feet (being facetious here) that the leadership of society will go... "hhhmmm, didn't see that coming".

I am of course on the fence over the whole issue.

Eukaryotic
Mar 31st, 2005, 08:44 AM
There was a special report out a few years ago by IPCC on Land Use and Land Use Change as they relate to greenhouse gas emissions. Data shows that changes in land use (e.g., deforestation) account for roughly the same amount of emissions as fossil fuel burning.

da_jonesy
Mar 31st, 2005, 08:53 AM
There was a special report out a few years ago by IPCC on Land Use and Land Use Change as they relate to greenhouse gas emissions. Data shows that changes in land use (e.g., deforestation) account for roughly the same amount of emissions as fossil fuel burning.

Interesting... so essentially we are "doubling up" by producing green house gases and deforesting at the same time.

Eukaryotic
Mar 31st, 2005, 09:08 AM
Interesting... so essentially we are "doubling up" by producing green house gases and deforesting at the same time.

Pretty much. Most of the large-scale changes are occuring in the tropics, where forests are burned and converted to agriculture and/or pasture lands. Forest cover in eastern North America has increased recently creating a carbon sink. It has happened as more and more rural lands in eastern N.A. have been abandoned and forests and woody vegetation have regrown.

There are all sorts of articles and mechanisms within the Kyoto Protocol for land use changes, but it's still unclear how they will all work. It becomes an accounting nightmare.

MacDoc
Mar 31st, 2005, 09:30 AM
The best way for Australia to easily meet it's commitments to Kyoto is too eliminate all it's ruminants ( methane is a huge contributor ).
0.8% of Australia's land produces 80% of it's agricultural profits while the remaining agricultural land ends up being subsidized.

It makes all sorts of sense. Australia is particularly subject to warming issues and has to make some hard decisions. Rethinking it's land use is a terrific method. Tourism is a huge economic factor and would benefit immensely from the kind of money currently being funneled to agri-business as direct or indirect subsidies AND help with the global warming problem.

One example - a single guy plus his dogs with no full time help runs several thousand sheep and still has to use the farm as a B&B.
Australia has a particular "low fertility" problem that was exacerbated by the import of British farming expectations and practices plus poorly understood water and salt issues.

Fascinating and if the world can get on a rational track of sustainable resource use then both resources AND global warming issues can be modifiied in a positive way.

Requirements: rational, long term leadership........MIA. :(