Compelling Case for Global Warming

[BUDDY]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4c7db6de-81b7-11d9-9e19-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=d4f2ab60-c98e-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html

Well, I may need to seriously rethink my position on Global Warming and the Kyoto Treaty. What do you guys think?

 

[Fluffy]

I figure that whatever is causing global warming (ie whether it is natural causes or human interference) is now irrelevant. There is nothing we can do to stop the damage which we have already afflicted and it is highly unlikely we will reduce the worlds emmisions by 60% over the next few years.

The Kyoto treaty is pathetic. Even if the country responsible for 20% of the worlds emmisions did agree to it then it will do hardly anything. A bit like trying to put out a bush fire with a single drop of water. Still I guess its a step in the right direction but its all too little too late really. We need to find someway to reverse the damage we have already done as well as reducing future damage.

 

[michel]

PART QUOTE:-Fluffy[The Kyoto treaty is pathetic. Even if the country responsible for 20% of the worlds emmisions did agree to it then it will do hardly anything. A bit like trying to put out a bush fire with a single drop of water. Still I guess its a step in the right direction but its all too little too late really. We need to find someway to reverse the damage we have already done as well as reducing future damage.]

That is your own personal judgement ; based on what? You are refuting scientific research; as to your second point; if your pessimistic attitude was one accepted by all, there would be little to live for.

 

[BUDDY]

I am one of those that believes that the earth is able to repair itself once damage has been done. I don't think we can do anything that will cause permanent damage, but I also don't think that is a reason to keep doing things we know are harmful to the environment.

 

[Yerda]

I am one of those that believes that the earth is able to repair itself once damage has been done. I don't think we can do anything that will cause permanent damage, but I also don't think that is a reason to keep doing things we know are harmful to the environment.

Aye sure, the planet will survive. It might not be hospitable to us though.

 

[Fluffy]

That is your own personal judgement ; based on what? You are refuting scientific research; as to your second point; if your pessimistic attitude was one accepted by all, there would be little to live for.

Pessimism? I'm not often accused of that but perhaps you are right in this case. I think its just more frustration at the slow moving wheels of politics.

The Kyoto Treaty is based upon science sure but as soon as it is brought to stage where it must be approved by governments then you will see a direct conflict between politics and science making this treaty more a product of the former than the latter. Well they both agree that emissions need to be cut. The critical difference, and this is where the Kyoto Treaty fails, is on the scale at which this needs to be done.

Before the industrial revolution, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppmv. Today this has risen to roughly 370 ppmv, meaning an increase of 90 ppmv. To those people who believe that industry is growing at a VERY low rate, and therefore this output won't increase very much, then the most conservative estimate of carbon dioxide levels is 500 ppmv (worst case scenario 1200 ppmv) in 100 years time. Keep in mind that the carbon dioxide levels we have at the moment are the highest in 20 million years.

The Kyoto agreement is not going to touch 20% of these emissions since they are produced by the USA. That leaves 104 ppmv which will be affected by the treaty assuming that the 33 industrialised countries that are signing the treaty are responsible for all of the remainder, which they arent. This will bring the total increase down to roughly 70+26=96 ppmv. Now don't get me wrong that is a a big drop from an estimate of 500 ppmv to 466 ppmv.

I do have one or two little problems with this though. For a starters it is a very conservative figures and so the estimate is likely to be a little higher than this at least. Secondly, this is still a 66% increase on what the make up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be. I don't think that the world can handle an increase of this amount and therefore perhaps my frustration at this treaty is a bit more understandable.

I think the focus should be more on reforestation projects and removing the carbon dioxide which is already up there then it won't matter how much we pump out as long as we can replace it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Too bad I can't read the entire story.

It's hard to comment without seeing their premises back up by evidence.