How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asmodean


[DanS]
These predictions are based on models of unknown validity
[/DanS]

I never said that Kyoto was good. I want the Bush administration to acknowledge that there is a potential problem, and then to work on a solution. As of now, they are doing neither.

Asmodean

I'll give you that but please give me that it is easier to predict economic activity out 10 years then to predict climate change out 100 years.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV


The issue with Kyoto is that it screws nations like Canada and the United States, which have a developed industrial base, and it lets completely off the hook an la nation like China, which has no restrictions and is allowed to build factories and pollute like crazy in order to catch up with the rest.

How is that an issue? The rich pay, the poor catch up and then pay.

[Asmodean]

I meant that I would like to see the U.S. playing an active role in proposing an alternative to Kyoto, whilst at the same time working with scientists across the board to study tre long-time effects of global warming.

Something to that effect. I am all against Kyoto, too. But I don't really see the Bush administration pushing for alternatives. That's what I meant by them not taking the problem seriously.

Asmodean

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


How is that an issue? The rich pay, the poor catch up and then pay.

Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

[Geronimo]

I do want to reiterate in case there is any doubt that modern anthropic CO2 emissions do indeed greatly exceed volcanic output.

also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

Erm, Kyoto will help the environment, if upheld. Should the EU and Russia seriosuly reduce their emissions (as they're supposed to), the environment will be much better off than if nothing was done. :duh:

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.

In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Erm, Kyoto will help the environment, if upheld. Should the EU and Russia seriosuly reduce their emissions (as they're supposed to), the environment will be much better off than if nothing was done. :duh:

How will the environment be any better than it is now? lower temperatures and even lower CO2 levels do not in and of themselves produce an environement any more inviting than one with higher temperatures or a higher CO2 level.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.

In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

It certainly derserves to be understood so we know if we will be happy with the results of such a change.

[Sandman]

It's awfully simplistic to suggest that more deserts in say, Africa will be 'balanced' out by a more habitable Siberia.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Geronimo
How will the environment be any better than it is now? lower temperatures and even lower CO2 levels do not in and of themselves produce an environement any more inviting than one with higher temperatures or a higher CO2 level.

I mean "better" 1. in comparison to what would happen if we continue to be pollution-happy and 2. with regard to the weather pattern human societies have grown with. With a dramatic change in the weather pattern, you'll bring a dramatic change to millions, if not billions, of humans. And the transition period is likely to be less than pleasant.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I do want to reiterate in case there is any doubt that modern anthropic CO2 emissions do indeed greatly exceed volcanic output.

also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

The key part is here:

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Notice how we aren't talking about just CO2 but all green house gases. Also Hawaii's volcanos are a rare breed of hot spot volcanos which are not typical. They are far more mafic and have fewer desolved gases then a subduction zone volcanos. Most of the world's volcanos are found either on midocean ridges or subduction zones so if we wanted a better idea of the exact composition of the gases released then Hawaii is not a good measurment.

We also have to consider production of green house gases from the decay of biological material and production of biological processes.

There are six main green house gases:

1) Co2
2) CH4
3) NOx
4) Hydrofluorocarbons
5) Perflourocarbons
6) Sulfurhexafloride

1,3, 6 often come in volcanos, 2 is mostly produced by biological decay, 4 & 5 are mostly man made. If we run the numbers to include all of these agents instead of just CO2 I believe you will find the results are much different.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

Not really, given that rich countries are already producing the vast majority of CO2 emissions.

The talks for post-2012 are already underway, and the Kyoto signataries are trying to get India and Japan with them at an ulterior date. If they are succesfull, America will be isolated.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

Even if we assume these numbers are correct (big if) we are still only looking at one green house gas. Methane (CH4) is a much better green house agent then CO2 and it's naturally produced by the decay of organic matter.

To see things clearly we need to detail what percent of each green house gas is man made then weight each percentage according to how efficient each gas is at trapping heat.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Not really, given that rich countries are already producing the vast majority of CO2 emissions.

That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.