<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4077073.stm">BBC News</a>

---

_________________________________

&gt; &gt; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4077073.stm">BBC News</a>
&gt;
&gt; &gt;The chief American negotiator at the conference in Argentina's capital
&gt; Buenos Aires ruled out any move to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol for years.
&gt;
&gt; He told reporters that efforts to cut emissions were based on bad science.
&gt;

I'd love to see the qualifications of this guy, is it like that Myron Ebell lobbyist/spokesman for big energy co's? And if they call this "bad science" what do they call their "intelligence" for the Iraq War, 9/11, etc?

Todays offering from the BBC
Some nice charts in the 'at a glance' section near the bottom of the page.


<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4077193.stm">UK failing on greenhouse gases</a>

---

_________________________________

I like the headline "UK Failing" but it's actually better than the Kyoto agreement (just "failing" to meet the more stringent 20% reduction). I mean, even with the "great Bush plan of reductions" it will still be a net INCREASE over the years for the US!

I may be the only person here who believes that Kyoto is seriously bad science - but I'll try to explain.

Greenhouse gases do, <b>almost</b> certainly, have some effect on global temperatures. But is it significant? I very much doubt it. There are constant variations in the solar output that can easily account for the small changes in temperature - after all, we are only just emerging from an ice age. You would expect temperatures to rise for the next 50-100 Kyears or so.

Secondly, industry and motor vehicles do, <b>almost</b> certainly, have some effect on global temperatures. But is it significant? I imagine so, but still [I gather] dwarfed by mammalian flatulence!

Now, like everyone else, I am well aware that we only have the one planet to play with and that unwise use of it is seriously undesirable.

Yet, unwise limitation of its use - don't waste this and that is maybe OK, but don't use the other isn't. If I'm 1m90 tall and weigh 120Kg, then a large car is more comfortable than a small one. If I like a room temperature of 28C then [provided it isn't doing anyone else unreasonable harm] I should be allowed it. <i>Is it doing unreasonable harm???????? </i>I reckon we don't know.

---

&gt;unwise limitation of its use
In other words, "nothing shall stand in the way of big business."

---

&gt; &gt;unwise limitation of its use
&gt; In other words, "nothing shall stand in the way of big business."
&gt;

Heaven forfend that anyone should think that. I'm not pro-big business, by any means, but I'm not unthinkingly against it either. Big businesses got big by supplying what customers want. Customers getting what customers want is usually good. Small businesses [like mine] stay small because we sell what only a few customers want.

---

&gt;Customers getting what customers want is
&gt;usually good.

The problem is that what may be 'good' for the individual customer may not be good for the rest of the planet, and eventually it won't be good for those particular individuals either. The choice which any individual makes may not do 'unreasonable harm' but we surely have a collective responsibilty in our small world.
The evidence for the links between Global Warming and greenhouse gases is there already, with more evidence accumulating all the time. The degree of that effect may yet need to be proven, but at exactly what level does it become 'significant'? And to whom? What may seem insignificant to someone living inland in the US or UK may not be to the Maldives islanders. Global Warming is not something to be switched on and off at will and it is entirely feasible that by the time individual consumers demand that 'something' be done because it has begun to effect them personally, it will be too late.

---

_________________________________

Hi Ron

I accept what you say about a possible natural cycle of warming, but when the composition of the atmosphere changes, (not just CO2), and the recent changes appear to correlate with use of fossil fuels, then I think we have to take action. Because the rate of change is speeding up, we can't just wait and see.

The increase in methane from livestock is largely part of the same problem, because the available land couldn't produce the amount of animal protein we want without heavy inputs of fertilisers and, ultimately, fossil fuel.

Parts of the climate science are still uncertain, particularly regarding the magnitude and effect of the GW predictions, but I don't think that the pollution part of the equation is in any doubt at all. Pollution cannot all be removed by current technology, and is probably as big a problem as GW. Not just to the planet, but to us personally.

OK, some people need a bigger car because of their size, etc, but if we waste energy when we don't need it, don't save it when we can, or engage in conspicuous use of it for selfish reasons, what do we say to the world's poor, when they want to have and use the same amount as us? How can we all live together?

Of course we love it in certain areas of life when we have the free choice of the marketplace, as long as we are rich enough to exercise our choices. But when privatisation and a free market lead to the fragmentation of services that need to be unified (eg UK buses and trains, and increasingly the health service), we can end up with more chaotic services for everyone. If you could see the school 'lunches' that most children choose in the school where I teach and unfortunately sometimes eat, you might also come to the conclusion that choice is often only a good thing when everything on offer is good or at least not harmful.

I am sure your business doesn't supply the doughnuts and fizzy drinks to my school!

---

__________________________________________________

Hi Ron!
I agree with you that the Sun's variability is the most important factor in global temperatures (if you've heard of the "little ice age" you know what it means).

However your assesment of the relative contributions of human carbon dioxide emission are incorrect.

From the EPA website:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html
Scroll down to their first reference report "Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Values - Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000 ".
In that report you'll find some useful explanations and tables.

Yes, methane has 20 times the "global warming potential" value (table 4) of carbon dioxide, but the total amount of methane, combined with its shorter lifetime will result in a much less total global warming effect, measured in equivalent CO2 terragrams (table 5).

Of course the carbon dioxide table only lists human sources, but we know that the increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is due to humans.

For example, an often brought up comparison is volcanoes. There was a famous article recently in the Seattle times, claiming that the recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens made it the state's number one poluter. In the same article there is a paragraph that states that despite volcanic eruptions, the average output of carbon dioxide by volcanoes is less than 1% that of human emission.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html

"Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions. "

Human caused carbon dioxide emission is not really bad science. At best it is a poorly constrained science, but not because we don't know what carbon dioxide does in itself, and how much we contribute, but because the climate system is so complex that we don't know how that responds to it.

So yes, we know carbon dioxide elevation. What we don't know is what it does to the environment (for all we know it could even decrease global temperatures, due to some strange feedback mechanism). That's what this climate model is here to find out.

---

And Russia.............

" Dr Andrei Illarionov, economic adviser to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, refused to accept that current warming was any more than a variation in the natural climate, and he repeatedly interrupted the proceedings (Exeter conference) with questions.

He told the Guardian: "President Putin was under great pressure to sign the Kyoto protocol, and Russia did so because we like to be friends with Europe, not because we believe in the science of climate change.

<i>"I tell you in any case that people like to be warm, which is why Europeans go south for their holidays. Anyone who is frightened about the prospect of global warming is welcome to come and live in Siberia."</i>

Laugh or Cry?
Marj

---

_________________________________

"Nothing shall be allowed to stand in the way of big business" in Russia too. Perhaps they'll chamnge their minds once the permafrost starts melting.

---

A distant ancestor in our family escaped from detention in Siberia pre-1900, by his own report killing 2 guards in the process, but his main complaint about the place wasn't the climate.

I thought that Canadian inhabitants of the more northerly areas are very concerned about climate change because of the environmental and economic disruption they can expect. We also saw recently on the phpbb forum how some people love living in Fairbanks, Alaska and choose to stay there. Probably the further north you go, the more important it is to have a decent standard of living, which unfortunately isn't always the case in Russia.

---

__________________________________________________

<a href="http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2005/02/17/"> Tom Toles on Kyoto</a>

---

_________________________________

&gt; <a href="http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2005/02/17/"> Tom Toles on Kyoto</a>
&gt;

Ah yes, the whole Kyoto thing.

For the record, I do live in the US. I do think
Kyoto is a good thing, a step in right direction,
and it embarrasses me the US government refuses to
support it. However, I don't believe Kyoto will make
a practical difference in reducing CO2 levels.

Why? Many reasons. First, the human population continues
to explode. I feel this overpopulated planet is the root
cause of many of the environmental problems we may end
up facing. A strong argument can be made the human
population is already way into overshoot, and without
the benefit a modern agriculture (dependent on oil) and
unsustainable farming practices the current population
is unsustainable. Second, the entire global economy is
based on growth, largely made possible by cheap oil. Even
with conservation efforts, consumption will continue
to rise, just perhaps a bit more slowly.

Once cheap oil dwindles (already happening) the price of
energy will go up. Hopefully this will slow down the
growth of the human population, but I have trouble imagining
CO2 LESS than 500 ppm next century (more likely double
that) barring some sort of 'dieoff'.

From my point of view, I do not currently see a bright future
for humanity.

---

&gt; &gt; <a href="http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2005/02/17/"> Tom Toles on
&gt; Kyoto</a>
&gt; &gt;
&gt;
&gt; Ah yes, the whole Kyoto thing.
&gt;
&gt; For the record, I do live in the US. I do think
&gt; Kyoto is a good thing, a step in right direction,
&gt; and it embarrasses me the US government refuses to
&gt; support it. However, I don't believe Kyoto will make
&gt; a practical difference in reducing CO2 levels.

It will make <i>some</i> difference, just not very much. What is particularly gauling is that the US wrecked the Kyoto treaty, by insisting it was watered down and adding dubious carbon sinks and various other things, then refused to sign after the rest of the world had given in to their demands, and now uses the weakness of Kyoto as an excuse.

&gt; Why? Many reasons. First, the human population continues
&gt; to explode. I feel this overpopulated planet is the root
&gt; cause of many of the environmental problems we may end
&gt; up facing. A strong argument can be made the human
&gt; population is already way into overshoot, and without
&gt; the benefit a modern agriculture (dependent on oil) and
&gt; unsustainable farming practices the current population
&gt; is unsustainable. Second, the entire global economy is
&gt; based on growth, largely made possible by cheap oil. Even
&gt; with conservation efforts, consumption will continue
&gt; to rise, just perhaps a bit more slowly.

As mentioned on other threads the population explosion is coming to an end. Yes we will be overpopulated, at least by the measure of how many people can live at western levels indefinitely, but not so overpopulated that people starve because there is not enough food in the world [people starve for many reasons, but lack of total available food is not one of them]. I suspect that even using low input farming (not dependent on non-renewable energy) we could still feed ourselves comfortably, the only difference is that meat would have to be much less eaten.

It seems likely that growth in western economies can continue without increasing use of non-renewable energy. The energy intensity of GDP is falling by 1.7% a year and western populations are stable, some falling, some rising (mainly due to immigration). Even the UK with one of the highest percentages of the adult population working could further expand that proportion. Then there is the shift to knowledge based industries. As the energy intensity of GDP decreases the affect of high fuel prices diminishes, in the 1970's a steep increase in the oil price lead to a recession and inflation, the steep rise this century has made little difference and growth in the US and UK has increased.

What I am very skeptical about is how fast we can reduce CO2 emissions. Yes, quite a lot could be done with electricity conservation, and more with better fuel economy of vehicles, but those and the other "easy" steps will not in my opinion be enough. The west will need to cut emissions by at least 60% and by some estimates by 80%, I just can't see how the average westerner in 30 years time will have double the standard of living but produce 20% of the CO2.

&gt; Once cheap oil dwindles (already happening) the price of
&gt; energy will go up. Hopefully this will slow down the
&gt; growth of the human population, but I have trouble imagining
&gt; CO2 LESS than 500 ppm next century (more likely double
&gt; that) barring some sort of 'dieoff'.

I would hazard a guess that CO2 will peak at 600-700ppm, leading to global temperature rises of 3-7C. Thats bad but not a catastrophy, at least not for most people. Still, a small proportion of the world's population is still a huge number of people. It looks like a few million will be displaced by sea level rises already in the pipeline (but they are mostly poor peasants in Bangladesh and Egypt so don't count! **)

&gt; From my point of view, I do not currently see a bright future
&gt; for humanity.

Don't give up hope! I heard on the radio today that a major difference between Americans and Europeans is that Americans still believe in miracles.

[** as they have no purchasing power they do not affect the worlds economy, nor do they burn significant amounts of fossil fuel. They are too poor even to be economic migrants. From a human point of view the displacement of so many will be a disaster of major importance. ]

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

&gt; increasing use of non-renewable energy. The energy intensity of GDP is falling
&gt; by 1.7% a year

Is this a global figure or for western economies only? If western only, it would seem only to reflect the export of manufacturing and other primary industries to developing nations. I doubt energy intensity of GDP is declining globally. Presumably, across most of the developing world it is increasing rapidly.

---

&gt; &gt; increasing use of non-renewable energy. The energy intensity of GDP is
&gt; falling
&gt; &gt; by 1.7% a year
&gt;
&gt; Is this a global figure or for western economies only? If western only, it
&gt; would seem only to reflect the export of manufacturing and other primary
&gt; industries to developing nations. I doubt energy intensity of GDP is declining
&gt; globally. Presumably, across most of the developing world it is increasing
&gt; rapidly.

The 1.7% figure is for the whole world. However, OECD CO2 intensity of GDP fell at 3.5% between 1980 and 1985 and at 1.5% after that, this sugests that the export of manufacturing was not a major factor (at least up to the last couple of years). See <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter1.html">here</a> for all the details.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.