Kyoto is dead!

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Is Kyoto Dead?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dennis Avery [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Latest Meeting, In Failing to Find Agreement, Undercuts Claims of Urgency, Environmental Doom[/FONT]​
The Kyoto Protocol has died. None of its members has cut carbon dioxide emissions, and their big Montreal meeting has just failed again to agree on any future cuts.
With apologies to David Letterman, the Top ten reasons to rejoice over the death of Kyoto are:
# 10: Wind farms are expensive and really ugly. They kill birds and bats. Nor do they produce much electricity when really needed, during daylight hours. Kyoto would have planted them over huge stretches of countryside.
#9: None of the sanctimonious countries backing Kyoto have cut their carbon dioxide emissions since they joined the greenhouse club. Britain closed its antique coal pits and shifted to North Sea natural gas earlier and Germany says it will cut emissions by half a percent. Smug Canada is 20 percent over its Kyoto allotment for carbon dioxide emissions.
#8: Contrary to media reports, the ocean's coral reefs aren't dying from the heat. They bleach whenever the sea temperature changes, ejecting the algae partners that help them digest food, and picking new partners adapted to the new heat or cold. That's how they've survived Ice Ages—and the Climate Optimum 7,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.
#7: The Pacific islands aren't being flooded. More than 90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in Antarctica and Greenland—where recent measurements show the ice sheets are growing, not melting. Sea levels have been rising at a slow six inches per century, with no acceleration in the last 150 years.
#6: Kyoto wouldn't make any real difference to global warming. A 5 percent cut in greenhouse emissions is ridiculous if greenhouse warming is truly human-made and dangerous. Kyoto members would have to slash their carbon dioxide output by 70 to 80 percent to make a real difference in greenhouse gases.
#5: Biologists can't find a single wildlife species that's gone extinct due to the warming of the last 150 years. In fact, the UN Environmental Program says we lost fewer major species in the latter part of the 20th century than in the latter part of the 19th. The big reason? We quit clearing First World forests for farming, thanks to high-powered seeds, fertilizers and pesticides.
#4: The claim that global warming will create jobs is simple-minded. We would certainly create jobs if we threw away all our cars and appliances and rebuilt the gas stations to handle hydrogen. But we could achieve the same job creation by breaking all our windows and hiring people to replace them. We'd still be poorer.
#3: If global warming isn't dangerous enough to warrant using safe, cost-effective nuclear power that generates no greenhouse gases, it isn't serious enough to tax trillions of dollars out of our pockets.
#2: British grapes tell us the Earth is having its third warming in the past 2000 years. The Romans grew wine grapes in England in the 1st century, but it was too cold for them during the following Dark Ages. The British grew wine grapes in the 12th century, but again it grew too cold for grapes during the ensuing Little Ice Age—which lasted until 1850. Britain hasn't warmed quite enough to grow wine grapes today, but they're up to two good wine years out of ten.
#1: You needn't feel guilty about changing the climate. The long ice cores brought over the past 25 years show Earth has had 600 moderate, natural global warmings in the last million years—due to variations in our sun. Fossil pollen shows North America's trees and plants completely reorganized nine times in the past 14,000 years. Temperatures rise suddenly and erratically about 2 degrees C above the mean, and fall 2 degrees C below it during the cold phases. It's natural.
Goodbye, Kyoto. . . . Sayonara.
 

jjaycee98

Electoral Member
Jan 27, 2006
421
4
18
British Columbia
Interesting Read. Personally I think the pollution of our air, water, and ground are more to worry about than temperatures. Now that the snow is gone: Alberta anyway, is covered in garbage that has either been trown from vehicles or has blown out of the backs of trucks. I think we need anti-littering laws with some teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crit13

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Great point which seems to be lost on the chicken littles of Kyoto.
What the hell does THAT mean? If anyone is "chicken little" it's all these big business guys who are wining about how the economy will crumble if kyoto is implemented. Yaaaaa...that's really optomistic...and that isn't saying alot in their faith of canadians or themselves...basically they are saying they aren't willing to change, aren't capable of adapting, that their entrepreunerial spirit is non existant and that they have little vision for the future and the great potential profits that can be made in a green economy. Those guys...are idiots, quite frankly. The economy is not going to shrivel up and die because of kyoto...and anyone who thinks it will, should not be in business in the first place.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
The economy shrinking by 4% is a drop in the bucket compared to the earth will be destroyed.
How can you even compare the two with a straight face?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
So? Kyoto was created in the 90's.

What's your point?

Can you rebut any of the 10 points presented in the article or your going to just dismiss it because it wasn't written in yesterday's New York Times?

How about this one?

Last Updated: Friday, 11 August 2006, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Greenland melt 'speeding up'

This Greenland glacier is now one of the fastest moving in the world

The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show.
Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004.
If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).
Most of the ice is being lost from eastern Greenland, a US team writes in Science journal.
Jianli Chen of the University of Texas at Austin and colleagues studied monthly changes in the Earth's gravity between April 2002 and November 2005.
These measurements came from the US space agency's Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, launched in 2002.
Acceleration of mass loss over Greenland, if confirmed, would be consistent with proposed increased global warming in recent years



Dr Chen and colleagues


From these data, they were able to estimate changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet.
A number of factors contribute to fluctuations in the Earth's gravity field.
But once the influence of the atmosphere and the oceans is removed, the variations mostly reflect changes in the mass of ice sheets and of water stored in the ground.
Estimated monthly changes in the mass of Greenland's ice sheet suggest it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometres (57.3 cubic miles) per year.
This figure is about three times higher than an earlier estimate of the mass loss from Greenland made using the first two years of Grace measurements.
Satellite data
Dr Chen and colleagues partly attribute this to increased melting in the past one-and-a-half years and partly to better processing of the data.
"Acceleration of mass loss over Greenland, if confirmed, would be consistent with proposed increased global warming in recent years," the authors wrote in Science.
This would amount to a contribution to global sea level rise from Greenland of about half a millimetre (0.02 inches) each year.
The group's findings agree remarkably well with a study released earlier this year that used data from other satellites to estimate mass changes in the Greenland ice.
Grace also appears to have detected a loss of ice from Arctic glaciers that were omitted from this study and are separate from the main Greenland ice sheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GenGap

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
So? Kyoto was created in the 90's.

What's your point?

Can you rebut any of the 10 points presented in the article or your going to just dismiss it because it wasn't written in yesterday's New York Times?

Its bad luck to speak of the dead. :lol:
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
Thanks for the info Juan.

I have a question though. In the article you posted, it states this...........

This would amount to a contribution to global sea level rise from Greenland of about half a millimetre (0.02 inches) each year.
That means that water levels would rise 2 inches in 100 years or 20 inches in 1,000 years. If water levels are going to rise about one and half feet in 1,000 years, then why are there people claiming that we will all be living under water in 40 years?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Thanks for the info Juan.

I have a question though. In the article you posted, it states this...........


That means that water levels would rise 2 inches in 100 years or 20 inches in 1,000 years. If water levels are going to rise about one and half feet in 1,000 years, then why are there people claiming that we will all be living under water in 40 years?

Have to admit I missed that little tidbit. I wonder if the decimal place slipped? Hardly seems reasonable that we only get 0.02 inches of sea level rise out of 239 cubic kilometers/year of ice from Greenland alone.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
And thus is the problem I have with the "chicken littles" of the Kyoto world. I think the green movement gets set back when we get so many conflicting messages.

I have heard that the water will rise anywhere from 6 inches to 22 feet.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
This Greenland glacier is now one of the fastest moving in the world

The meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show.
Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004.
If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).

Notice the word if at the beginning of the last quoted sentence. It's alot like saying 'The sun set today at 8:14 pm. If the sun were to completely disappear the temperature would plummet to...'

In the first case the reader walks away thinking sea levels will rise 21 feet in some time frame. In the second they would say 'don't be ridiculous'. However the same amount of scientific data supports both statements.

 
  • Like
Reactions: crit13

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Have to admit I missed that little tidbit. I wonder if the decimal place slipped? Hardly seems reasonable that we only get 0.02 inches of sea level rise out of 239 cubic kilometers/year of ice from Greenland alone.

The 0.02 inches is just ten percent of the total. If the total sea level rise is 0.2 inches/year, that would be 2.0 inches in ten years.......Hmmm.....still gonna take a while to get to 21 feet.....
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
The economy shrinking by 4% is a drop in the bucket compared to the earth will be destroyed.
How can you even compare the two with a straight face?
Huh?

So, you have taken the less extreme of the economic disaster predictors and compared it to the more extreme of the environment disaster predicators...

What the hell kind of comparison is THAT?
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
The 0.02 inches is just ten percent of the total. If the total sea level rise is 0.2 inches/year, that would be 2.0 inches in ten years.......Hmmm.....still gonna take a while to get to 21 feet.....

I don't know if This helps any.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
So, you have taken the less extreme of the economic disaster predictors and compared it to the more extreme of the environment disaster predicators...

What the hell kind of comparison is THAT?

Any comparison to life on earth becoming extinct is a drop in the bucket. 4% or 400% of GDP is still a drop in the bucket to armageddon.

Get over yourself.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
Who said anything about armageddon?

Gee, I dunno.
Sea level rising by 21 feet and leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced by floods.
Massive droughts all around the world.
Drinking water evaporating leading to the deaths of millions.
Species becoming extinct due to global warming.
More severe storms causing massive destruction.
Should I go on chicken little? Or should I just provide a link to the inconvenient truth?
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
Gee, I dunno.
Sea level rising by 21 feet and leaving hundreds of millions of people displaced by floods.
Massive droughts all around the world.
Drinking water evaporating leading to the deaths of millions.
Species becoming extinct due to global warming.
More severe storms causing massive destruction.
Should I go on chicken little? Or should I just provide a link to the inconvenient truth?
Sure...provide me with a ton of links that support your chicken little crap....feel free. But you are still ignoring what I am saying. There is a great deal of discrepency in ideas related to what we may or may not expect in the future. There are those that take a very extreme view, and those that take a less extreme view, but do believe that something major is happening to the earths climate. In many ways, we do not know exactly what will happen...but something will happen. Some very negative...some positive. We may very well end up with a number of very dire situations on our hands, and it is worth at least exploring those possibilities to either be prepared for them if they happen, or to prevent them from happening at all. I think there is legitimate concern over where this is all going. I don't think anyone can say for sure what exactly will happen. There are worse case scenarios and there are best case scenarios. The hope is for the best, but it's not a bad idea to be prepare for, or to prevent the worst. Or, we can stick our heads in sand and pretend nothing is happening because some oil barons don't want to lose their cash cow.

Personally, I have great concerns. I hope that the human species can adapt as fast as climate change appears to be happening. We may be able to...we may not. Some other species may be able to...a good number won't.

Also, you are right, money IS less important than the overall health of the planet....so, good...the focus should be on the planet and making sure that we aren't playing a part in the possibility of it no longer being able to sustain life. Could it happen? To some degree, it appears things are headed that way. Are there things we can do? Yes. We know that. Sooo, why not do them?