The Kyoto Protocol is Dead.

[turbocarrera]

From http://volcano.und.edu

As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.

The volcano explanation is a lie. Got any more?

[Aurel]

Me thinks, the major reason why the US was so vehemently opposed to the Kyoto treaty is because most of its electricity is produced by antiquated coal burning generators that actually do release lots of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence, there have been some lunatics pseudo scientists like Mr. Robinson to claim that CO2 is actually good for the environment. I am not saying that the Kyoto treaty was the best answer, but I do beleive that controlling the emissions of industries among nations is a good thing. But it should not be just limited to CO and CO2, so maybe a new Kyoto treaty that covers all types of emissions would be more fair.

Now, dealing with the controversy of wether or not global warming is man made or not, let us break the effects in few facts and discuss them one by one:

- There has been an increase in CO and CO2 in the atmosphere during the last 100 years. True or not ?

- This increase can be correlated with human activity. True or not ?

- Those, as well as H2O, are greenhouse gases, meaning that they will absorb IR radiation and prevent heat from being dissipated. That is a little bit like having your oil cooler covered with gunk... True or not ?

- There is an observed increased in global temperatures, that correlates well with the period of increase in CO and CO2. True or not ?

- There is also a hole in the ozone layer at the poles, attributed to the use of CFC...this does not help things. True or not ?

- SO2 emissions are responsible for acid rain. True or not ?

- NOx emissions (from cars) are irritants, that are responsible for chronic respiratory problems. True or not ?

I am just putting the questions together to let the folks discuss them.

Aurel

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tony -- even if I stipulate that your source would be agreed upon by all, and I don't; you need reading comp. lessons.

"As a long-term average" is very different from one or two (or three or four) large spikes -- Mt. St. Helens and Pinatubo, as I mentioned are some pretty large spikes, which many reputable scientists believe did the "damage" I described. Also, 1883's Krakatoa eruption is the earliest instance I can find of any scientific estimates of the "pollutive" effects of volcanos (not that I'm a vulcanologist...) so the "n" for averages will be relatively low.

Aurel -

Again, my point is not "hey, let's pollute and/ or wantonly release 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere," but rather that Kyoto was a woeful means of "controlling" something we don't understand.

Q1 -- Yes, and sometimes much higher than others.
Q2 -- "correlated," yes, but correlation specifically does not mean "causation". There have been large spikes and drops in temperature for as long as the planet has been around. While "dinosaur farts" may make for an interesting prehistoric greenhouse gas theory, the planet does do its thing, regardless of man or the then-dominant species. NOT that mankind can't have an effect...
Q3 -- Not nec. Within a year after Pinatubo, NASA recorded a drop of 1C in the Earth's average temperature, and the cooling effect lasted ~2 years.
Q4 -- Again, "correlation" is a word to be used very carefully when trying to deduce. Not that there couldn't be causation, again.
Q5 -- It is in no small part "attributed to", but I frankly don't know enough about it to say whether I believe it is "due to" or not. I'm skeptical, as I am with all "sky-is-falling" media hysteria surrounding a very complicated topic that Time dumbs down for the masses. Witness the Silent Spring fiasco for the gullibility of the public via ecohysteria.
Q6 -- SO2 emissions are a large cause of acid rain. The USGS estimates that MSH put 1 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere in 1980, and another million from 1980-1988. Mt. Etna can put out 100 times more than MSH, and Krakatoa about 2000 tons/day. Again, for those of you w/o scorecards, this is not to say man doesn't create 'acid rain', only that man didn't invent it -- it's been around since the planet had atmosphere, more or less.
Q7 -- Absolutely; along with a host of other causes for respiratory problems.

We can and should do more to reduce emissions, but let's get the causation/correlation thing (on a global, scientific level) straightened out first. Man did not invent atmospheric "pollution" nor climatic changes.

JP

[Overpaid Slacker]

Timely discussion, this. Tho' we've veered off into other topics (which is all good) we've been discussing global warming and someone (I'm too lazy to go back and look) asked for some of the data.

Well, turns out a recent article (which I'll get to in a sec) provided the link for one of the articles I was referring to. So here 'tis.

Now, I understand (and partially empathize with) the skepticism surrounding having those with commercial interests in the results of research conducting the research itself-- but it's a fact of life. However, do not delude your good selves by believing that academics and professional scientists will not and do not spin data for their own ends. Remember, these guys' prestige, grants and careers depend upon maintaining whatever theory it is that quite literally pays their bills. The gravitas of being an Important, Concerned Person in these areas can't be overstated for professional advancement. There is no necessary purity in the motives (and therefore the methods) of academic research.

So, when talking about Arctic warming, one crucial question becomes: Who Defines the Arctic?

Enjoy.

JP

[Aurel]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
However, do not delude your good selves by believing that academics and professional scientists will not and do not spin data for their own ends. Remember, these guys' prestige, grants and careers depend upon maintaining whatever theory it is that quite literally pays their bills. JP [/B]

Scientists who falsify results to maintin a theory usually have very short careers, like this guy . This is what peer reviewing is all about ! Hey, I was just reviewing a paper from a guy whose XRD data was saying the opposite as what he was claiming. I just trashed his paper, it is as simple as that ! Sure some will try to spin their data, but we`re here to catch them

Aurel

[Overpaid Slacker]

Keep up the good work, Aurel!

Just keep an eye out for the convenient decisions and possible forum-shopping of peer review that goes on when determining questions such as what constitutes the Arctic.

We need someone to jack the next Michael Bellesiles in the head before their agenda-driven blatant falsehoods make headlines all over the place. Though at least that *****bag, after months of further lies and obfuscations (and a lot of toe-twisting-in-the-dirt "who us?-ing" by his like-minded peers and the Columbia Univerity colluders) finally had his Bancroft Prize revoked.

JP

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by SIR944
Why is it people believe Global warming / weather pattern shifts influenced by "man" can be a hoax or some kind of conspriacy for the "left", but cant believe that Bush stole the election from Gore! lol

952 Kiwi is back!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
952 Kiwi is back!

I thought the same thing, but am holding back judgement

[SIR944]

952 is / was my brother

He is a very intelligent guy, so thanks for the compliment.

:cheers: