Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases takes Effect

[archman]

edition of the journal Science has an article that describes the author's (Naomi Oreskes, Univ CA) summary of 928 peer-reviewed climatological studies performed during 1993-2003.

For those of that don't wish to stroll to your local library, here are some summary links.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041217-044511-3578r.htm

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2005/jan_10_05.htm

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05b.html

 

[Goose75]

I think that the ice core samples that they take in Antarctica amount to a bit more than a 'small portion'.

Ice core samples are great because they give a relation between eras. The problem is that they are regional and there is not a direct correlation as to what caused the change. They serve great in a supporting evidence role but are not enough to serve in the primary role.

The other problem is that the Earth is highly complex in nature. Sometimes things should change as part of a cycle. In mankind’s history we are only recently aware of the complexity and change going on worldwide. We are only now collecting reliable data. On a piece of paper, look at a timeline with a million years (a small sample), we are looking at inconsistent data recordings for basically a hundred years. If you put a pencil dot on that line, you have grossly over-represented the amount of data we have. We have enough to be aware of change and to theorize future change, but not enough to accurately predict.

I had an Environmental Engineering Professor in college who hated working with Environmentalists. His job and entire focus in life was to study the environment and protect it. His complaint was that Environmentalists did far more harm on every project he worked on, because they acted without real thorough understanding and limited data.

I think there are far better arguments for conservation than global warming.

 

[Goose75]

Then why did it take the government and scientists so long to get the facts out in the case of roadways and illness? Of course the European studies were decades ahead of the LA ones. Do you (literally) smell "special interests?" In the case of greenhouse gases do you smell the same thing? I do.

Dr. Bill

That's because US government is based on different principles than European ones. Until the time of the Great Depresion, the US people considered Government as the greatest enemy of freedom and primarily a protection from outside influences. Since that time it has slowly acquired more and more responsibility for public health and other social issues that conflict with our notions of freedom. They probably only now have focussed on the issue becuase they now feel powerful enough to act on it. 20-30 years ago, they would have been thrown out of office for threatening to shut down a major source of income for percieved problems to the health of the public.

 

[Kim]

Cancer and global warming similar? Hmmmm? Nope.

Planetary cancer. Like you said....it's not rocket science.

 

[Kim]

For my part, I can.

I just can't equate it to the Kyoto Accord.

There seems to be two arguments going on here in this thread. One of them is whether global warming actually exists - the other is an acceptance that it exists but a difference of opinions over the causes and solutions.
I can understand that some people have differing views on the second one - I'm afraid that proponents of the first tend to leave me thinking about the proverbial ostrich and sand.

 

[dlndavid]

Kim,
When the sun comes up in the morning the temperature is cooler than at mid day where the temperature is warmer, then towards evening it cools down again as people are retiring. In your thinking temperature fluctuations must be caused by man. This must be a fact. Most people are asleep at night, but when they awake it's warmer. So daily we have "global warming" instead of just normal temperature fluctuations. You are right, I stand corrected and I am shaking the sand out of my ears.
Thanks pal.

 

[Kim]

I think that you are misunderstanding my position. I have not said that planteray warming IS caused by man - as a fact. I am saying that the probability that it is is so high that I think that it is and therefore taking measures to try to limit it are simply prudent. That people differ about these measures I have some understanding for.
The ones that leave me shaking my head are those that deny that any form of plantery warming exists, or that the greenhouse effect is not a contributing factor.

I can remember arguing with my Dad over 30 years ago about this subject. In those intervening years the predicted (then) rise of global temperatures is steadily occuring. I also lived in Holland for a long time where any chance that sea levels might rise are taken VERY seriously - and they are. I don't believe that this is something that should be ignored - the potential consequences are simply too massive.

 

[Potapko]

If he accepts the reality of global warming, why didn't the USA ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We are the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases globally.

One primary reason

No one has given or can give any solid evidence that humans are influencing the global climate. We do not need to argue whether or not the climate is changing. WE do not need to argue whether or not we are emitting greenhouse gasses. (regardless of the fact that the period of actual measurements and not estimated changes is extremely short)
The primary reluctance to treaties like Kyoto, is that while they cost untold billions, there is no scientific evidence that a full implementation will affect global temps at all. The best estimates are that a full implementation MIGHT effect a change of a fraction of one degree.

Anybody interested can write a check to the UN to help fund this.

 

[drbill]

Kim,
When the sun comes up in the morning the temperature is cooler than at mid day where the temperature is warmer, then towards evening it cools down again as people are retiring. In your thinking temperature fluctuations must be caused by man. This must be a fact. Most people are asleep at night, but when they awake it's warmer. So daily we have "global warming" instead of just normal temperature fluctuations. You are right, I stand corrected and I am shaking the sand out of my ears.
Thanks pal.

I am now beginning to think that you are seriously "logic challenged." This makes NO sense to me whatsoever in the context of this discussion.

Dr. Bill

 

[Potapko]

I find THAT pretty scary Bill. There may or may not be a problem, We may or may not be the cause, better throw 500,000,000,000 at the situation and feel better about it.

I think that is pretty illogical.