Kyoto-Are Americans Eco-Terrorists?

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

Because of their policy on signing the Treaty on Greenhouse emmissions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/climatechange/kyototreaty.shtml

Will some countries in the future feel a neccessity to "Invade America" on Enviromental Morals?

 

[Locrian]

Good quesiton.

Some other good questions:

Are the european countries that signed Kyoto and repeatedly failed to meet its standards ecoterrorists? Are the "developing" countries that burn huge amounts of oil but weren't included in the Kyoto protocol ecoterrorists? Are the politicians who failed to come up with a plan that actually reduced CO2 emissions ecoterrorists? Are the media "journalists" that promoted kyoto without ever critically examining it ecoterrorists?

Are the people who complacently and blindly believe Kyoto is a meaningful solution to a real problem ecoterrorists?

Yes, I'd love to hear answers to all these quesitons. Why don't you tell us what you think? :uhh:

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

Good quesiton.

Some other good questions:

Are the european countries that signed Kyoto and repeatedly failed to meet its standards ecoterrorists? Are the "developing" countries that burn huge amounts of oil but weren't included in the Kyoto protocol ecoterrorists? Are the politicians who failed to come up with a plan that actually reduced CO2 emissions ecoterrorists? Are the media "journalists" that promoted kyoto without ever critically examining it ecoterrorists?

Are the people who complacently and blindly believe Kyoto is a meaningful solution to a real problem ecoterrorists?

Yes, I'd love to hear answers to all these quesitons. Why don't you tell us what you think? :uhh:

My interest is based on a very basic knowledge, which to be honest petered out a couple of years ago. Recently the above issue's were brought up in conversations with some friends (it is their wordings I have tried to convey here), I did instigate the conversation with reference to "The Skids-Working for the Yankee Dollar".

What started out as a conversation about music, I explained that:Working for the Yankee Dollar, the song, was about economical "hand-cuffs", that America imposes on the rest of the World, based on the strength of the Dollar?

The 'Eco' crusade of the Eighties has fallen way below expectations, due to I believe, the political loyalties that certain countries want to preserve, Europe included.

The reference to the "Invading of America", was a notion put to me by one friend, who I think see's just 'surface politics', and forms ill guided opinions from this lack of understanding, every nation has its own Agenda is what I believe is the root of major problems, with some countries avoiding their duties in favour of other "hidden agendas". This is not a slating of America by myself, its a fact of life, I believe.

Europeans are not Angels, I pointed out to my friends that their internall distrust of America, is leading to a biased point of view, and if their knowledge of music was really that good, then they would know that there are many different aspects to music, more than just "Country AND Western"!

 

[russ_watters]

Simply put, Kyoto is bad for the US and useless for the world. Doing something useless is worse than doing nothing because it convinces people they don't have to do anything else - at least if we had done nothing, everyone would still agree we need to do something.

 

[Locrian]

What started out as a conversation about music, I explained that:Working for the Yankee Dollar, the song, was about economical "hand-cuffs", that America imposes on the rest of the World, based on the strength of the Dollar?

Whomever wrote that song needs a lesson in economics. The strength of the dollar over the past two decades has been almost entirely financed by foreign (non-US) governments. Recently the only reason the dollar has had any strength at all is due to the Chinese government - well, with a little help from a few other asian countries.

The only other reason the dollar was ever strong was because it was a reasonably stable currency backed by a huge government that was issuing bonds of high grade with good interest. Blaming america for any of that is rediculous.

If the strong dollar is a hand cuff... well, the US didn't put it on, and we don't have the key.

Talk to the Chinese for that.

 

[Andre]

I think, Russ, that Kyoto is very important to the world. It moderates our psychological needs for an enemy and it ensures that we don't use our protection instinct to a more disastrous cause like accumulating enemy images that is ultimately causing world wars, etc.

More about that effect here

However, starting to build enemy images with eco-terrorism is not that helpfull.

And if fossil fuel really is about to deplete it may come in handy to think about alternatives, although the truth would still have been better.

 

[PerennialII]

For example at least many of the European countries participating are pushing emissions down in accordance with the treaty ... and since nothing else seems to be done on the matter on a global scale, it's hard to see it as a wasted effort.

 

[CharlesP]

Are the European countries that signed Kyoto and repeatedly failed to meet its standards ecoterrorists?

The question is highly slanted. Many European countries are struggling hard to comply, some are close. They recognize the problem and are making an effort.

Are the "developing" countries that burn huge amounts of oil but weren't included in the Kyoto protocol ecoterrorists?

Nonsense. The developing countries do not burn huge amounts of oil compared to the United States. Furthermore they are in a desperate economic situation compared to the leisurely life of Americans. So the Americans ought out of fairness be obligated to reduce their emissions much more.

Are the politicians who failed to come up with a plan that actually reduced CO2 emissions ecoterrorists?

The Kyoto plan is a good first step. It is being implemented voluntarily by many companies even in the US. The Kyoto plan is just a first step. Stricter plans without loopholes are contemplated and hopefully will follow swiftly.

Are the media "journalists" that promoted kyoto without ever critically examining it ecoterrorists?

The only folks who failed to critically examine the Kyoto plan are its opponents. It is scientifically sound because it demonstrates intention to fix a very serious problem.

Are the people who complacently and blindly believe Kyoto is a meaningful solution to a real problem ecoterrorists?

Any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is part of the solution.

The global warming problem was first brought to scientific credibility in 1980 according to an article in Physics Today. Since then the enormous volume of measured data has brought the global warming problem to near certainty. The scientific community stands solidly behind it. Those who disparage the United Nations report have been reduced to a few industry motivated quacks. In the United States there is a large political following opposing the greenhouse solutions. These people are by and large the same folks who are ignorant of science and oppose it in other areas such as evolution, cosmology and artificial intelligence. By means of a very expensive public relations misinformation campaign these folks have delayed public recognition of the problem twenty years, and government action (USA) an additional possible decade. History is repeating itself. The fight over chloroflourocarbons was equally bitter and ended with a solid defeat of these same folks.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is scientifically sound because it demonstrates intention to fix a very serious problem.

Er, the latter does not support the former...

 

[CharlesP]

OK, The Kyoto protocol is based on the United Nations report which is certainly scientifically sound.

 

[Andre]

Somehow I deeply regret my decision to ignore the messianic prophecies of heroic warriors like these, but it hurts deeply to see the truth so totally deformed. But it’s probably better for mankind to deflect our devastating natural human instincts to a harmless enemy. So I swallow my pride and my instincts for the truth to prevail.

 

[russ_watters]

Nonsense. The developing countries do not burn huge amounts of oil compared to the United States. Furthermore they are in a desperate economic situation compared to the leisurely life of Americans. So the Americans ought out of fairness be obligated to reduce their emissions much more.

My criticism of Kyoto focuses specifically on China, which does burn huge amounts of oil, and worse, coal (political-environmentalists always seem to forget about coal...), and does not have a "desperate economic situation." With around 10% annual economic growth, China's pollution output is rapidly increasing.

The global warming problem was first brought to scientific credibility in 1980 according to an article in Physics Today. Since then the enormous volume of measured data has brought the global warming problem to near certainty. The scientific community stands solidly behind it. Those who disparage the United Nations report have been reduced to a few industry motivated quacks...

You're missing the entire point of the criticism: you're right that very few people think recducing emissions isn't a good idea (and global warming is not the most important reason why - regular old air pollution kills 20,000 people a year in the US right now). The point of the criticism is the way the reductions are structured and that is a political issue, not a scientific issue.

History is repeating itself. The fight over chloroflourocarbons was equally bitter and ended with a solid defeat of these same folks.

No, it wasn't as bitter. I it happened fast and it happened fast for a reason: everyone contributed to the solution. Everyone banned CFC's.

 

[Locrian]

The question is highly slanted. Many European countries are struggling hard to comply, some are close. They recognize the problem and are making an effort.

And failing. The question isn't slanted. If someone is an ecoterrorist for not complying with kyoto...well, that makes many countries ecoterrorists. If you'd like to label them as such, that is fine with me, but at least be consistent.

Nonsense. The developing countries do not burn huge amounts of oil compared to the United States.

Yes, they do. China is the second biggest producer in the world. Take a look at where it will be over the next twenty years. It's staggering.

In the United States there is a large political following opposing the greenhouse solutions. These people are by and large the same folks who are ignorant of science and oppose it in other areas such as evolution, cosmology and artificial intelligence.

Provide evidence of this. Otherwise it is merely an extremely cheap ad hominem attack.

 

[CharlesP]

China emits only about half as much greenhouse gas as the US yet China has twice as many people. These publications show that China is already making an effort to comply with Kyoto even though it is not expected to become binding until 2012.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/achinagg.asp
Shame on the USA:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1201-04.htm

The claim about CO2 absorbtion saturating near present levels is not relevant because the saturation occurs in the short wavelength band of sunlight and not the long wave band of Earth emission. The graph shows short wave characteristics well below 5 microns.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/LabManual/lab.modtran.html

 

[Locrian]

The claim about CO2 absorbtion saturating near present levels is not relevant because the saturation occurs in the short wavelength band of sunlight and not the long wave band of Earth emission.

The reference you site does not suggest this at all. If you look more closely, the CO2 absorption bands in the infrared saturate almost immediately. They do not increase significantly with increasing co2. Obviously they saturate to a warmer air level due to the fact that the saturation occurs closer to the Earth's surface.

That reference you site actually makes it look like increasing CO2 from current levels does absolutely nothing. Of course, it is just a model. What's more, it does not take many other factors, such as water vapor into account. If your goal is to make a case for global warming through co2, then you should have someone with more knowledge on the subject make it.

In the United States there is a large political following opposing the greenhouse solutions. These people are by and large the same folks who are ignorant of science and oppose it in other areas such as evolution, cosmology and artificial intelligence.

Still no backing for this statement? Do you make a habit of making such rediculous accusations without supporting them?

 

[Andre]

Oops, Charles, better restudy the modtran link a little bit closer and perhaps reconsider your post.

You see, It just happens to be the singlemost important refutation of the greenhouse gas hype, very bad for would-be heroic greenhouse gas warriors.

 

[CharlesP]

Neither of the supposed refutations in the previous two posts is valid.

To refresh your memory the saturation claim stated that "Adding CO2 to the atmosphere above the present levels will have no effect because the absorbtion has already saturated." (That means we can pollute all we want and get away with it.) I lost the thread where the link was posted but this one is similar. The point made is that this graph and saturation are only relevant for sunlight impinging on the Earth in the short wave band near one micron. The graph coordinates 200 to 1200 are .2 to 1.2 microns as far as I can see. How he gets the radiation curves for temperatures shown beats me. It is not consistent with the link below. It would be nice if he labeled his axis with units. The modtran author is talking about light going out in this band. The Earth radiates very little in this band. In the IR band (above five microns) where the Earth radiates there is no such saturation effect, therefore the saturation is of minimal effect. For a comparison of incoming and outgoing bands see http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/radiative-transfer/rt1/AT622_section10.pdf

As for my last statement, anyone who knows the politics of the US is aware of it. In particular you might remember those who called Al Gore "Ozone man." This is testimony to the political heat associated with the ozone gas restrictions. Somehow right wing folks always seem to act like they were born yesterday (Both their spokes people and their audience).

 

[Locrian]

The graph coordinates 200 to 1200 are .2 to 1.2 microns. The modtran author is talking about light going out in this band. The Earth radiates very little in this band.

Heh, it appears someone isn't familiar with spectroscopy... or blackbody radiation, for that matter. That graph's x-axis is in wavenumbers. This obvious error renders your previous posts on the subject invalid.

As for my last statement, anyone who knows the politics of the US is aware of it.

This is not true. I am aware that many conservatives dissagree with the kyoto protocol. To say that people who disagree with the kyoto protocol are ignorant of science, or even conservative, is an entirely different argument that requires validation.

You suggested that several people in this thread have opinions that are usually associated with those ignorant of science. Coming from someone who so blatantly confuses his units, this requires more evidence than "anyone who knows politics is aware of it."

 

[Locrian]

By the way, why not a physics problem?

What wavelength does 1400 correspond to? How about 200? Where is the peak in the blackbody spectrum at 300 degrees kelvin? What wavenumber does this correspond to?

Is that wavenumber on the graph in the link you posted?

 

[LURCH]

Shouldn't this be in the "Politics" sub-forum?

 

[CharlesP]

By the way, why not a physics problem?

What wavelength does 1400 correspond to? How about 200? Where is the peak in the blackbody spectrum at 300 degrees kelvin? What wavenumber does this correspond to?

OK, I use wave length or frequency for my work. I don't use centimeters and leave out the 2 pi when making K. 7.1 microns, 50 microns, 9.7 microns. Wavenumber is 1030.

Is that wavenumber on the graph in the link you posted?

It is hard to read his writing, but he has wavelength in microns. The 1 to the left of center is one micron.

It looks like I may have to recant my original point. "Additional increases in CO2 won't do much more damage than is already being done according to the Modtran model."

However if the present rate of heating is intolerable then it will have to be reversed.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the China:CO2 claim itself, even some environmentalist sites that are reporting this (and this is mostly being reported by environmentalists - and for a reason...) say its an aberration due to a recent restructuring of the coal trade. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=488

An energy expert with long experience of the Chinese utility industry told Cooler Heads that the apparent reduction in emissions was primarily due to a simple change in coal production. Under communism, coal mines had to meet quotas based on tons of coal mined. This meant that miners would increase their production by including wet coal and dirt on the edge of seams. Now under semi-capitalism, utilities will not buy coal below a certain quality. This means that coal production figures have declined, while the amount of coal actually burned has not declined at all.

 

[roamer]

I have not really made my mind up on wether I favor Kyoto Protocols, but I guess it really boils down to wether or not CO2 emissions will indeed cause global warming. I've heard many convincing arguments based on some pretty complicated models, but they are models and they are complicated and I don't think I have the knowledge to make a conclusion.
Locrian, it seems you are against the protocols, putting economic effects aside do you think the protocols would even reduce global warming? Do you even think continued CO2 emissions/burning fossil fuels will even result in global warming?

 

[Andre]

So what causes the recent warming in many places of the world?

So what happened weatherwise? A friend told me that around 1975 the "North Atlantic Oscillation" (NAO) shifted from strong negative to strong positive. Simultaneously the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted from negative to positive. This caused the sea surface temperature of the Pacific ocean in the tropics to increase structurally. This caused eventually temperatures to change in all the oceans, inducing an decrease of cloud cover and a measured /confirmed decrease of Earth albedo (reflectivity) as well as a increase of insolation. All of this caused changes in the Walker/Hadley cell circulation as well as the parallel temperature trends of troposphere measured by weather balloons and surface. Finally as the surface is warming, the upper troposphere (tropopause) is cooling due to the limited reflection (lower albedo).

However these effects are not entire global. On the average there is a slight cooling trend in parts of both America´s, central China and NE Siberia.

What causes global warming? I suggest a <control>-F search for the term "greenhouse gas" in my friends narrative.

 

[CharlesP]

So what causes the recent warming in many places of the world?

So what happened weatherwise? A friend told me that around 1975 the "North Atlantic Oscillation" (NAO) shifted from strong negative to strong positive. Simultaneously the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted from negative to positive. This caused the sea surface temperature of the Pacific ocean in the tropics to increase structurally. This caused eventually temperatures to change in all the oceans, inducing an decrease of cloud cover and a measured /confirmed decrease of Earth albedo (reflectivity) as well as a increase of insolation. All of this caused changes in the Walker/Hadley cell circulation as well as the parallel temperature trends of troposphere measured by weather balloons and surface. Finally as the surface is warming, the upper troposphere (tropopause) is cooling due to the limited reflection (lower albedo).

However these effects are not entire global. On the average there is a slight cooling trend in parts of both America´s, central China and NE Siberia.

What causes global warming? I suggest a <control>-F search for the term "greenhouse gas" in my friends narrative.

In normal oscillations heat is moved from one place to another. Then to compensate for the hot place there is always a cold place. This works fine until all places are hot. Then it is not the coincidence of oscillations but real global warming. The environmentalists are turning up the heat: http://eed.llnl.gov/cccm/pdf/Caldeira_Science_2003.pdf

 

[Andre]

Obviously, of course. It's that simple.

 

[Pengwuino]

Simply put, Kyoto is bad for the US and useless for the world. Doing something useless is worse than doing nothing because it convinces people they don't have to do anything else - at least if we had done nothing, everyone would still agree we need to do something.

I am going to print this statement, hang it on my wall, and buy ad space all over the nation (or well i wish) and just flash that quote on every station on tv. The australians admitted it, Clinton knew it, the UK admitted it. The protocols do NOTHING and uninformed people think its the world's saviour. What, 13% reduction in CO2 for example... 2 years and we're back to the same levels. Its alllll politics. Politicians don't want to do anything that will prevent them from getting re-elected in every nation. Plus of course, China gets out as the worst polluter but faces no reprecussions.

 

[dx/dy=?]

In my humble opinion,

It seems a lot of the posters here have not read the Kyoto Protocols, or studied any Earth Sciences.

To fully understand the protocols, we must also understand the current practices of industries, their aims, and their global impact. Along with the state of Earth as it was, is, and will be, (or hopefully will not be.)

Asia is some of the more stringent compliers with the protocols.
For example, Japan has fitted its major city skyscraper grids with numerous government funded solar-panels.
Not only does this reduce the need for coal burning/mining, hence reducing CO2 emissions,
But, it also allows society to move away from Nuclear power. :yuck:

 

[russ_watters]

I am going to print this statement, hang it on my wall, and buy ad space all over the nation (or well i wish) and just flash that quote on every station on tv.

Wow, thanks.

However, I must insist you send me a quarter every time someone hears/sees you use it...

For example, Japan has fitted its major city skyscraper grids with numerous government funded solar-panels.

I think you must have misunderstood: because of the shape of skyscrapers, solar panels can provide only an insignificant fraction of their power. Solar power on commercial buildings only works in suburbs and rural areas where you have a lot of roof space (ie, large footprint buildings) for panels, relative to the size of the building.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually you crazy derivative :P, the protestors against the treaty are usually the only people who have a clue as to what the protocols actually are about and the only people who konw anything about Earth sciences. And most of the more intelligent people regard nuclear power as far cleaner then coal/gas and more cost effective then solar and more reliable then wind. You seem to be one of those people ignorant of the great benefits of nuclear power.

And yes, thank youf or pointing out the hilarity of sky-scraper solar panels russ. And no, no royalties for you!

I find it funny that people are against anything nuclear. I once heard someone cringe at the idea of thermonuclear power and she said "thats even worse!". I didnt even want to try to explain. But, as one of my professors said 'fusion power would be great, infact its so incredible that its probably impossible"

 

[Allegro]

Pengwuino wrote:
''I find it funny that people are against anything nuclear...''

Not funny at all,just think about the disasters that happened (Harrisburg,Tsjernobil...),and will happen again.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Much of the motivation for Kyoto comes from the psychological attitude that any climatic change is bad and if something bad is happening it must be humans fault. It is much like the attitude expressed by volcanic island residents when the volcano becomes active. They assume they must have done something bad that offended the volcano god and they must do something to appease this god.

The situation is exacerbated by the tendency of the media to hype everything and look for simple explanations that journalists and politicians can understand. The idea that the amount of CO2 can function as a global thermostat appeals to the desire for simple explanations. Besides CO2 can be portrayed as an "evil" gas because it is exhaled by the body and is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

Thus we have the theory that humans are at fault for causing a climate change that will lead to alll kinds of disasters by producing the evil gas CO2.

The idea that climate can have a simple explanation ignores the fact that climate/weather research played a major role in establishing the field of study called "chaos".

 

[antfm]

Anyway, Kyoto will be fulfilled (reducing a 15 to 20% CO2 emissions by 2050). Or perhaps Kyoto was innecessary.
According to the estimates, there will be no fossil fuels available by then (the optimistic surveys give 60 years to availability of fossil fuels, and the pessimistic just 30 years; in any case...)

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino wrote:
''I find it funny that people are against anything nuclear...''

Not funny at all,just think about the disasters that happened (Harrisburg,Tsjernobil...),and will happen again.

Judging by what you say, you know little about nuclear energy. Chernobyl was caused by bad safety practices and a bad reactor design not used in the United States. Three mile island was only a partial meltdown and not a "disaster". As we all know, nuclear energy, once mined and discounting samples and depleted material, gives off no pollutants as opposed to coal and oil which give off CO2 which according to the world, is horrible and should be fully dealth with. Look at France, 75% of their electricity is nuclear... funny, i never hear of people complaining about nuclear power that are french.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Judging by what you say, you know little about nuclear energy. Chernobyl was caused by bad safety practices and a bad reactor design not used in the United States. Three mile island was only a partial meltdown and not a "disaster". As we all know, nuclear energy, once mined and discounting samples and depleted material, gives off no pollutants as opposed to coal and oil which give off CO2 which according to the world, is horrible and should be fully dealth with. Look at France, 75% of their electricity is nuclear... funny, i never hear of people complaining about nuclear power that are french.

Coal fired plants also emit some radioactive carbon. Oil and coal plants also produce several other pollutants that may adversely affect health including mercury.