Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Kyoto is on

  1. Feb 16, 2005 #1

    Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind. Kyoto is on. Based on the multiple refuted evidence of the hockeysticks we bravely start fighting windmils with windmils.

    Thoughts anybody?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 16, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I saw on the news that a Russian paper mill is already profiting
    from this mystical global warming, the factory has an on going
    modification scheme and receives grants for producing less
    a single government can be stupid, but a multitude together should
    have the resources to find the truth, and i guess they have but are
    ignoring the facts and using the fear factor for their mutual benefit.
  4. Feb 17, 2005 #3
    Of course it surelly helps but I think Kyoto doesnt help so much to the Earth . It use 'carbon sink' policy , that mean it focus carbon dioxide this greenhouse gas only . Excluding Co2, methane , CFCS , Nitrogen dioxide are also greenhouse gases.methane has the greater effect of enchancing global T than that of co2.
  5. Feb 17, 2005 #4
    Kyoto won't help a bit - that's bad

    Doesn't matter because anthropogenic greenhouse effect change is minimum - that's good

    Legal fees and production cuts will hamper the economy - that's bad

    The requirement for emission cuts will lead to acceptance of nuclear alternatives - that's good

    There will also be a lot of powerless windmills - that's bad

    Eventually it will show that the global warming is not happening and that the sciencific basis is flawed - that's good

    People will loose confidence in science in general after the debunking of global warming - that's bad.

    If science advices policy makers to go nuclear now or face massive economic collapse due to oil depletion the policy makers will say:

    "Yeah...right, says who, and who told me that global warming was true?"
  6. Feb 19, 2005 #5
    Whithout carbondioxid in the atmosphere, the earth will become cold. I think it couldn't hurt to put a little extra in there, how can you be totally sure global warming will ever become a problem. If we didn't burn oil, then in a billion years all carbondioxid will be gone. Should it really be called global warming, shouldn't it be called global cooling?
  7. Feb 19, 2005 #6
  8. Feb 19, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    To say something, I think that a decreasing of a 5% in the emissions of CO2 won't change the things so much, but surely advanced countries will obtain several economic profits selling the rights of emissions to poorer countries.

    As an example, Spain is allowed to increase the CO2 emission to a +15% to what we had in the moment of establishing the protocol. And we go beyond the +30% right now. Kioto doesn't seem a serious threat to force countries to decrease the CO2 emission, and now it only provides to engineers a puzzling problem.

    Anyway, it is better than nothing.
  9. Feb 19, 2005 #8
    Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise, and that fast. Correct me if I'm wrong but if it doubles won't the sun become 4 times as hot, E=mc2, right? In that case, wont we be fried?

    if it doubles in 1000.000.000 years, lightspeed will increase, 0,8 mm per day
  10. Feb 20, 2005 #9

    Your report of the study follows the usual line:
    There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.

    (well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.

    Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues

    Yes and?

    increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature

    This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.

    If we dont cut emissions we will fry

    That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?

    Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.
  11. Feb 20, 2005 #10
    Thank you for the reply. I had my doubts about the "study".

    BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?

    Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?
  12. Feb 21, 2005 #11
    No it's not.
  13. Feb 21, 2005 #12
    Actually, last I heard the number of allowed emissions was preset and based on the US joining in. Given that we haven't, the tradeable emissions are quite numerous, and it may end up having less of an effect than inteded. In that way, at least, it may not be much of a gamble in any direciton.
  14. Feb 22, 2005 #13
    It has been established that 75% of the greenhouse effect of 33K is attributable to water. The remaining part is shared by greenhouse gasses. Some 60% of that (15% of the total) being CO2.

    I doubt if we ever get to much more increase of global temp than one degree compared to the 1900 level. There are many more factors that may be a lot worse to Earth
  15. Feb 22, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So essentially the educated thing to do is to quit the chatter about warming and start doing something reasonable in ecological terms ?
  16. Feb 22, 2005 #15
    That's my idea.

    My priority list, not necesary in that order:

    Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

    Reforestation and oceanic fish management

    Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

    Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

    Invest in nuclear fusion research.

    Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

    Things not to do:

    investing in renewable energy sources
    emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

  17. Feb 22, 2005 #16
    So solar plants are not worth the effort? I protest. Especialy since we more or less are flowers that walk and talk, what can be more natural for earthlings to do then to produce solar plants? Ofcourse there will be times when humans have to manage without the sun, but we should develope better solarplants while we still have the sun, don't you think?
  18. Feb 22, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I find it hard to question any of these ... all sound reasonable and agree with the direction completely. Rather than focusing on obscure solutions which may or may not work, may or may not be based on reality, these do address the problems we're facing globally, and do it pragmatically.

    Emission cutbacks ought to have their basis in reality, which doesn't really seem to be the case ... now their are just abstract cuts as you suggest. With respect to renewables I can't say I've adequate information whether the cost/benefit ratio is such that within a reasonable timespan they are able to contribute, or would the rational approach be to ditch them, invest in nuclear + natural gas and use the development money to advance fusion ... what is the latest in this area ?
  19. Feb 22, 2005 #18
    About renewables.

    The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

    About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.

    And then there is no wind.

    So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.

    But there are more forms of renewables of course.
  20. Feb 22, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, considering the power output solar and wind are pretty much that, somehow I don't have high hopes for geothermal and don't see how the amount water produced energy can be increased (or don't think that should at least). The idea of biomass in my mind suffers from the same ideas as water, what about something more exotic ... like is there any hope for fuel cell power plants etc. ?
  21. Feb 22, 2005 #20

    I would like to add, a good reduction in tax on corporations. This will allow them to invest more in alternative sources of energy and they are generally much more efficient than the government.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook