View Full Version : Russian objections effectively kill Kyoto Protocol
He219
12-03-2003, 08:02 AM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/03/international/03kyo.jpg
Russia to Reject Pact on Climate, Putin Aide Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/international/europe/03KYOT.html?th)
MOSCOW, Dec. 2 — A senior Kremlin official declared Tuesday that Russia would not ratify the international treaty requiring cuts in the emissions of gases linked to global warming, delivering what could be a fatal blow to years of diplomatic efforts.
"We shall not ratify," said Mr. Illarionov, the senior Kremlin adviser on economic affairs and an outspoken critic of the treaty, apparently ending more than a year of uncertainty about Russia's position.
Kingpin
12-03-2003, 08:08 AM
http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2003/12/03/international/03kyo.jpg
Russia to Reject Pact on Climate, Putin Aide Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/international/europe/03KYOT.html?th)
MOSCOW, Dec. 2 — A senior Kremlin official declared Tuesday that Russia would not ratify the international treaty requiring cuts in the emissions of gases linked to global warming, delivering what could be a fatal blow to years of diplomatic efforts.
"We shall not ratify," said Mr. Illarionov, the senior Kremlin adviser on economic affairs and an outspoken critic of the treaty, apparently ending more than a year of uncertainty about Russia's position.
Russia produces much lower amount of such gases comparing to western countries so you can relax.
Andrekid
12-03-2003, 10:05 AM
:(
Sorry, but not only Russia kill Kyoto protocol
The USA never agree to sign this protocol, and USA is the greattest source of pollution in the world
André
I'm sorry to say he's right, the Kyoto protocol was killed long ago by good ol' George W. Bush.
budanski
12-03-2003, 11:12 AM
Now, of course, we'll see hundreds of thousands of European citizens marching through the streets in protest of the arrogent foreign policy of Russia. The demonstraters will scream about Putin and his cowboy individualism and contempt for the environment that is putting the world at risk. Just like they marched and screamed against the old Soviet Union for their immoral stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Only, of course, they didn't then. And they won't now.
similar post here (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5972):
Letting the hot air out of Kyoto (http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.asp?id=0373632D-2A31-4D1B-806E-BE8CC3F301FE)
EU nowhere near meeting Kyoto targets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1098635,00.html)
Riddle me this. Denmark has the greatest percentage of wind power electricity generation of any nation yet they rank the worst among the EU... Explain That!, Enviro-wackos
On target
Sweden +3.3% UK +1.4%
Off target
Germany -1.3% Luxembourg -5.6% France -9.5% Italy -10.2% Greece -10.7% Netherlands -12.1% Portugal -14% Finland -16.5% Belgium -22.9% Austria -24.5% Ireland -26.8% Spain -33.3% Denmark -37.8%
Russia Deals Blow to Kyoto as EU Backslides (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20031202/sc_nm/environment_kyoto_dc)
What's the point of spending a lot of money to stop the reliance on fossil fuels, when the US has given up on kyoto and saving money, and making themselves richer at the expense of nature?
budanski
12-03-2003, 11:30 AM
What's the point of spending a lot of money to stop the reliance on fossil fuels, when the US has given up on kyoto and saving money, and making themselves richer at the expense of nature?
Oh of course not. Everyone was counting on the U.S. to PAY for Kyoto. The Russians would have gotten billions by selling coal burning rights and the like. The Canadians would have gained too. Nobody else would have paid except for a couple of self-hating Eurosocialist countries, and they would only have paid for themselves. The U.S. was expected to pay for the rest of the world.
Like I said before, the Kyoto Protocol was a scam from the beginning. Is it all America's fault? Or is it all Russia's fault, whose cooperation would "virtually ensure" implementation? And what about China? Oh, that's right. I forgot. This WTO member doesn't count because it's a "developing country," one that just happens to have the second largest GDP in the world (5.7 trillion in purchasing power parity), a major military establishment and a robust space program.
John Stossel Alert: Gimme a Break!
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 11:35 AM
What's worse is that the U.S. has also rejected the Paris Protocol, which called for US companies to pay a 50% income tax to Jacques Chirac and his gay lover. So, the US is polluting the world just so that US companies can be rich and swim in their own money.
:roll:
fuc* that euro-socialist garbage. :backhand:
Oh of course not. Everyone was counting on the U.S. to PAY for Kyoto. The Russians would have gotten billions by selling coal burning rights and the like. The Canadians would have gained too. Nobody else would have paid except for a couple of self-hating Eurosocialist countries, and they would only have paid for themselves. The U.S. was expected to pay for the rest of the world.
why was it expected to pay for the rest of the world, it has **** loads to do in america, the rest of the world is nowhere near as bad.
Like I said before, the Kyoto Protocol was a scam from the beginning. Is it all America's fault? Or is it all Russia's fault, whose cooperation would "virtually ensure" implementation? And what about China? Oh, that's right. I forgot. This WTO member doesn't count because it's a "developing country," one that just happens to have the second largest GDP in the world (5.7 trillion in purchasing power parity), a major military establishment and a robust space program.
John Stossel Alert: Gimme a Break!
China is not democratic and does little for anyone else. The US however is a democratic country which should care for future generation, I'm not a green and I don't particularly like these ideals, but ignoring them, like Bush does is bound to lead to problems.
budanski
12-03-2003, 11:50 AM
Your own U.K. based think tank...
IPPR criticises Kyoto Protocol (http://www.environment-centre.net/cgi-bin/croner/jsp/Editorial.do?cache=true&contentId=94004)
The report claims that Kyoto delivers only a 1 to 2% cut in emissions from industrial nations while total global emissions will increase by 70%. It says that the Protocol is based on “horse-trading between nations, not fair shares of emissions rights”, and points out that two major industrial nations, America and Australia, have opted out.
Your own U.K. based think tank...
IPPR criticises Kyoto Protocol (http://www.environment-centre.net/cgi-bin/croner/jsp/Editorial.do?cache=true&contentId=94004)
surely if it supports you it's not biased? ;)
budanski
12-03-2003, 12:17 PM
Your own U.K. based think tank...
IPPR criticises Kyoto Protocol (http://www.environment-centre.net/cgi-bin/croner/jsp/Editorial.do?cache=true&contentId=94004)
surely if it supports you it's not biased? ;)
The jig is up ;)
Back to the matter... Russia originally signed on to Kyoto because it was going to be able to sell carbon dioxide credits to the rest of the world and make billions of dollars a year out of it. Except that "the rest of the world" translates into "the United States", since we're the only country rich enough to come up with all that money. When the U.S. rejected Kyoto, the financial incentive for Russia vanished. Meanwhile the Russian economy has been soaring, and the disadvantages of Kyoto were starting to outweigh the advantages.
Even if the claims were true, would you be willing to harm your own economy and significantly reduce your standard of living, just so you can bring 1/2 degree in 50 years? - the economic distortions are not worth it. I find it very funny how CO2, a basic gas neccessary for life's existance, is now pollution.
So instead of getting involved and sorting the damn thing out, the best thing to do is ignore it?
budanski
12-03-2003, 12:29 PM
Listen, If the EU wants to limit GHG emmissions then do it, you do not need a treaty. Create the technology to live without GHG emmissions and market it to the world. The treaty is nothing but wealth redistribution disguised as a save the world from pollution treaty. Communist moved into the enviromental movement after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Kyoto Protocol is what it is, Junk Science.
Saranof
12-03-2003, 01:40 PM
What's the point of spending a lot of money to stop the reliance on fossil fuels, when the US has given up on kyoto and saving money, and making themselves richer at the expense of nature?
Oh of course not. Everyone was counting on the U.S. to PAY for Kyoto. The Russians would have gotten billions by selling coal burning rights and the like. The Canadians would have gained too. Nobody else would have paid except for a couple of self-hating Eurosocialist countries, and they would only have paid for themselves. The U.S. was expected to pay for the rest of the world.
Like I said before, the Kyoto Protocol was a scam from the beginning. Is it all America's fault? Or is it all Russia's fault, whose cooperation would "virtually ensure" implementation? And what about China? Oh, that's right. I forgot. This WTO member doesn't count because it's a "developing country," one that just happens to have the second largest GDP in the world (5.7 trillion in purchasing power parity), a major military establishment and a robust space program.
John Stossel Alert: Gimme a Break!
You do so need someone to point out, that the US is the biggest polluter in the world.
It all comes down to money. Since we all know who pays Mr Bush, and seeing that they don't really care for the future, it's no suåprise that he didn't accept the deal.
budanski
12-03-2003, 02:11 PM
You do so need someone to point out, that the US is the biggest polluter in the world.
It all comes down to money. Since we all know who pays Mr Bush, and seeing that they don't really care for the future, it's no suåprise that he didn't accept the deal.
Seeing that America produces around 40% of the world's gross production, thats to be expected and be labeled "top polluter."
When you start talking about dividing our greenhouse emissions by our economic output, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany.
Russia, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil don't fare too well.
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 02:31 PM
You do so need someone to point out, that the US is the biggest polluter in the world.
It all comes down to money. Since we all know who pays Mr Bush, and seeing that they don't really care for the future, it's no suåprise that he didn't accept the deal.
Seeing that America produces around 40% of the world's gross production, thats to be expected and be labeled "top polluter."
When you start talking about dividing our greenhouse emissions by our economic output, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany.
Russia, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil don't fare too well.
indeed.
budanski, you rock! woot woot woot woot woot
Trigger
12-03-2003, 04:43 PM
It's true:
budanski rocks!
" find it very funny how CO2, a basic gas neccessary for life's existance, is now pollution."
Oh yes.. CO2... the new wonder gas. When you die of suffocation by being in a sealed up space which gas is it that actually kills you? Nitrogen? More than 70% of the atmosphere? Nah.
The same gas that makes the surface temperature of venus over 400 degrees celsius? Yup.
"When you start talking about dividing our greenhouse emissions by our economic output, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany. "
And when the temperature starts rising I am sure the icepacks will take that efficiency into account. Current estimates are for an increase in temperature of 5.8 degrees by 2100. Doesn't sound like much, but if you think that during the last major ice age the temperature was 9 degrees colder than it is now and there was an ice pack 3km thick where New York is now then it might be of interest to you. Of course there is new evidence that the problem could be much worse than that. An incident at sea near a river delta caused the sea to burn. Over thousands of years plant material and other organic matter had been dumped into the sea and built up as a large biomass around where the river meets the sea. In ths case a change in sea temperature caused the large biomass to start rotting and generating methane gas. Methane gas is actually worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas and when it does degrade in the atmosphere it creates CO2. There is a very good chance that slow changes in temperature could result in sudden mass releases of such gas from around the world which of course would be like putting your foot down on the accelerator for a tight corner ahead. If was can't stop it then perhaps you should read a book about what it is like on Venus.
Why should the US pay to save to world... they are so disadvantaged and poor they way things are I can certainly see why they'd want to do nothing and let it change. The grain bowl of the US becomes tundra where nothing will grow, or a burning desert where rain is as likely as choclate chip cookies falling from the sky... Nah, nothing to worry about.
Just as well the US pulled out... the rest of the world is always bullying the US to do things it doesn't want to do anyway.
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 07:50 PM
It's true:
budanski rocks!
:hug: :hug: :hug:
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 07:58 PM
" find it very funny how CO2, a basic gas neccessary for life's existance, is now pollution."
Oh yes.. CO2... the new wonder gas. When you die of suffocation by being in a sealed up space which gas is it that actually kills you? Nitrogen? More than 70% of the atmosphere? Nah.
The same gas that makes the surface temperature of venus over 400 degrees celsius? Yup.
The same gas that allows plants to produce chlorophyl?
could it be that the earth is in equilibrium and that it balances itself? noooo... that's too obvious. let's tax the US because they produce CO2.
"When you start talking about dividing our greenhouse emissions by our economic output, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany. "
And when the temperature starts rising I am sure the icepacks will take that efficiency into account. Current estimates are for an increase in temperature of 5.8 degrees by 2100.
do you know that the sun causes global warming? let's take out the sun. :roll:
did you know that the last time the sun ejaculated, there was a temporary but impressive change in water wave height? (aka natural change)
the sun is more of a threat to the earth than humans could ever dream possible.
Doesn't sound like much, but if you think that during the last major ice age the temperature was 9 degrees colder than it is now and there was an ice pack 3km thick where New York is now then it might be of interest to you. Of course there is new evidence that the problem could be much worse than that. An incident at sea near a river delta caused the sea to burn. Over thousands of years plant material and other organic matter had been dumped into the sea and built up as a large biomass around where the river meets the sea. In ths case a change in sea temperature caused the large biomass to start rotting and generating methane gas. Methane gas is actually worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas and when it does degrade in the atmosphere it creates CO2. There is a very good chance that slow changes in temperature could result in sudden mass releases of such gas from around the world which of course would be like putting your foot down on the accelerator for a tight corner ahead. If was can't stop it then perhaps you should read a book about what it is like on Venus.
once again, nature would do more damage than humans could ever do.
Why should the US pay to save to world... they are so disadvantaged and poor they way things are I can certainly see why they'd want to do nothing and let it change. The grain bowl of the US becomes tundra where nothing will grow, or a burning desert where rain is as likely as choclate chip cookies falling from the sky... Nah, nothing to worry about.
Just as well the US pulled out... the rest of the world is always bullying the US to do things it doesn't want to do anyway.
please tell me how kyoto would affect global emissions. :lol:
budanski
12-03-2003, 09:35 PM
" find it very funny how CO2, a basic gas neccessary for life's existance, is now pollution."
Oh yes.. CO2... the new wonder gas. When you die of suffocation by being in a sealed up space which gas is it that actually kills you? Nitrogen? More than 70% of the atmosphere? Nah.
The same gas that makes the surface temperature of venus over 400 degrees celsius? Yup.
"When you start talking about dividing our greenhouse emissions by our economic output, in terms of economic efficiency, America comes in third, after Japan and Germany. "
And when the temperature starts rising I am sure the icepacks will take that efficiency into account. Current estimates are for an increase in temperature of 5.8 degrees by 2100. Doesn't sound like much, but if you think that during the last major ice age the temperature was 9 degrees colder than it is now and there was an ice pack 3km thick where New York is now then it might be of interest to you. Of course there is new evidence that the problem could be much worse than that. An incident at sea near a river delta caused the sea to burn. Over thousands of years plant material and other organic matter had been dumped into the sea and built up as a large biomass around where the river meets the sea. In ths case a change in sea temperature caused the large biomass to start rotting and generating methane gas. Methane gas is actually worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas and when it does degrade in the atmosphere it creates CO2. There is a very good chance that slow changes in temperature could result in sudden mass releases of such gas from around the world which of course would be like putting your foot down on the accelerator for a tight corner ahead. If was can't stop it then perhaps you should read a book about what it is like on Venus.
Why should the US pay to save to world... they are so disadvantaged and poor they way things are I can certainly see why they'd want to do nothing and let it change. The grain bowl of the US becomes tundra where nothing will grow, or a burning desert where rain is as likely as choclate chip cookies falling from the sky... Nah, nothing to worry about.
Just as well the US pulled out... the rest of the world is always bullying the US to do things it doesn't want to do anyway.
The main source of CO2 (and ALL OTHER GLOBAL ASSOCIATED GASSES!!!!!) IS NOT industrial CO2 but rather volcanoes and natural products/processes.
If CO2 is a pollutant, that would mean all animals – by breathing – are polluters. I can see that happening. For the sake of CO2 levels, we all need to stop breathing, because it's what we exhale.
To put things into perspective:
Mankind's impact is only 0.28% of Total Greenhouse effect (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif
Average Global Temperature vs. Atmospheric CO2(PPM) over the last 600 Million Years
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Still skeptical? It seems the Evil Bush Syndicate has established itself on one of Neptune's largest moon, Triton which also happens to be like earth's - composed mostly of molecular nitrogen has, get this, a global warming problem.
MIT researcher finds evidence of GLOBAL WARMING on Neptune's largest moon (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/1998/triton.html)
JUNE 24, 1998
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- We're not the only ones experiencing global warming. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune's largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser.
While no one is likely to plan a summer vacation on Triton, this report in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature by MIT astronomer James L. Elliot and his colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory and Williams College says that the moon is approaching an unusually warm summer season that only happens once every few hundred years. Elliot and his colleagues believe that Triton's warming trend could be driven by seasonal changes in the absorption of solar energy by its polar ice caps.
"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase," said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.
Triton is a simpler subject than Earth for studying the causes and effects of global warming. "It's generally true around the solar system that when we try to understand a problem as complex as global warming -- one in which we can't control the variables -- the more extreme cases we have to study, the more we can become sure of certain factors," Elliot said. "With Triton, we can clearly see the changes because of its simple, thin atmosphere."
The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer.
Elliot and his colleagues believe that Triton's temperature has increased because of indications that the pressure of the atmosphere has increased. Because of the unusually strong correlation between Triton's surface ice temperature and its atmospheric pressure, Elliot said scientists can infer a temperature increase of 3 degrees Fahrenheit over nine years based on its recent increase in surface vapor pressure. Any ice on Triton that warms up a little results in a big increase in atmospheric pressure as the vaporized gas joins the atmosphere.
Scientists used one of the Hubble telescope's three Fine Guidance Sensors in November 1997 to measure Triton's atmospheric pressure when the moon passed in front of a star. Two of Hubble's guidance sensors are normally used to keep the telescope pointed at a celestial target by monitoring the brightness of guide stars. The third can serve as a scientific instrument.
In this case, the guidance sensor measured a star's gradual decrease in brightness as Triton passed in front of it. The starlight got dimmer as it traveled through Triton's thicker atmosphere and then got cut off completely by the moon's total occultation of the star. This filtering of starlight through an atmosphere is similar to what happens during a sunset. As the sun dips toward the horizon, its light dims because it is traveling through denser air and because the sun's disk gets "squashed."
By detecting that Triton's atmosphere had thickened, astronomers were able to deduce that the temperature of the ice on Triton's surface has increased. "This pressure increase implies a temperature increase," Elliot wrote. "At this rate, the atmosphere has at least doubled in bulk since the time of the Voyager encounter." Like the Earth, Triton's atmosphere is composed mostly of molecular nitrogen, but its surface pressure is much less than that of the Earth--about the same as that 45 miles high in the Earth's atmosphere.
In their Nature paper, Elliot and his colleagues list two other possible explanations for Triton's warmer weather. Because the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, it may be absorbing a little more of the sun's warmth. Or changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat. "When you're so cold, global warming is a welcome trend," said Elliot.
About the same size and density as Pluto, Triton--one of Neptune's eight moons--is 30 times as far from the sun as the Earth. It is very cold and windy, with winds close to the speed of sound, and has a mixed terrain of icy regions and bare spots. Triton is a bit smaller than our moon, but its gravity is able to keep an atmosphere from completely escaping because it is so cold. Its composition is believed to be similar to a comet's, although it is much larger than a comet. Triton was captured into a reverse orbit by Neptune's strong gravitational pull.
Other astronomers who participated in this investigation are MIT research assistant Heidi B. Hammel and technical assistants Michael J. Person and Stephen W. McDonald of MIT; Otto G. Franz, Lawrence H. Wasserman, John A. Stansberry, John R. Spencer, Edward W. Dunham, Catherine B. Olkin and Mark W. Buie of Lowell Observatory; Jay M. Pasachoff, Bryce A. Babcock and Timothy H. McConnochie of Williams College.
This work is supported in part by NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society.
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 09:40 PM
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
* sound of a cracking whip *
very nicely done, budanski rocks!
my favorite part is where the earth's current temperature is the lowest it has been in 250 million years. :)
oh wait, i forgot, the rapid increase and decrease over 300 million years was caused by man. :cantbeli:
budanski rocks! woot woot woot
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 09:43 PM
"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase," said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit. "
i also forgot that when man, not the Sun, colonized triton, they were responsible for contributing to global warming. :cantbeli: :cantbeli:
Dmitri
12-03-2003, 11:11 PM
Well, I am glad you guys feel better about our environment, but don't you ever notice the smog or grey looking air in the sky when you look at the cities from afar? And think about it: a lot of things on earth, just about everything in the nature, produces carbon when it decomposes. Now think how much people have increased that process: by burning so much wood, oil, gases and coal. And you say vulcanos produce more CO2? rofl C'mon guys, use some common sense. There are billions of cars on earth, do you think vulcanos and decaying trees produce more carbon?
Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 11:13 PM
Well, I am glad you guys feel better about our environment, but don't you ever notice the smog or grey looking air in the sky when you look at the cities from afar? And think about it: a lot of things on earth, just about everything in the nature, produces carbon when it decomposes. Now think how much people have increased that process: by burning so much wood, oil, gases and coal. And you say vulcanos produce more CO2? rofl C'mon guys, use some common sense. There are billions of cars on earth, do you think vulcanos and decaying trees produce more carbon?
it's true, man. :|
He219
12-04-2003, 12:37 AM
http://images.wn.com/i/19/bd89c4a0.jpg
Methane levels hold steady (http://wn.com/link/nph-link.cgi?worldphotos/photo.txt&24686186&http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eguardian%2Eco%2Euk%2Flife%2Fdispatch%2Fstory%2F0%2C12978%2C1098939%2C00%2Ehtml)
Levels of the greenhouse gas methane have plateaued for the first time in about 200 years, shows a report in Geophysical Research Letters. Methane is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to our planet's warming. The gas - belched out by fossil-fuel burning, rice paddies, festering farm manure and landfill sites - has been accumulating since the industrial revolution(NASA file)...
mocking_loudly_died
12-04-2003, 12:42 AM
This planet is a **** hole, im moving to Mars.
Seiyuuki
12-04-2003, 03:17 AM
Forget Mars, Naboo is a much nicer place.
"the sun is more of a threat to the earth than humans could ever dream possible."
True, but what can we do about that?
"once again, nature would do more damage than humans could ever do. "
Sure and when our excesses trigger these changes I am sure the someone will try to blame Earth for it. From 100,000km up the Earth is a huge blue ball. (considering it is 2/3rds water it should be called water shouldn't it?) If you have a look at the bright edge of the earth that is us. A thin band of atmosphere about 30km thick, from about 15 up in the air and 15km down in the water is where pretty much all of life on earth resides. We are mould. The Earth doesn't care if it has an average temp of 22 degrees, an the animals certainly can't stop us from doing what we want. The US took some bold steps forward a few years back to ban landmines but then faltered and backpedalled. Now it won't even get on the bike. Talk about leadership. You whine about not wanting to be the worlds policeman, then you step in when you have an interest.
Where are your balls... it is your scientists that are making most of the rather dire predictions. Lost your faith in your science and technology or just want to keep your head in the sand cause it has gotten comfortable?
"could it be that the earth is in equilibrium and that it balances itself? noooo... that's too obvious."
It was balanced when the only CO2 emmissions were caused by animals breathing and the regular forest fire started by lightning or eruption. Now we have chopped down all the trees where we live and told poor countries in central and south america they can't do the same, we over pollute the seas, which asborbs more than half of the CO2 produced anyway, but our pollutants is killing kelp, seaweed and plankton that actually absorb the CO2.
"please tell me how kyoto would affect global emissions."
Oh I am sure US emmissions will continue to be hot, frequent and of little use to anyone.
"The main source of CO2 (and ALL OTHER GLOBAL ASSOCIATED GASSES!!!!!) IS NOT industrial CO2 but rather volcanoes and natural products/processes. "
But that has always been there and it has been managed. We are changing things too much for things to stay the way they are... the world won't end... it will be here for a very long time... it is just that humans and most of the animals won't be around.
"If CO2 is a pollutant, that would mean all animals – by breathing – are polluters. I can see that happening. For the sake of CO2 levels, we all need to stop breathing, because it's what we exhale. "
If that was all we exhaled then mouth to mouth resusitation wouldn't be much help would it? 70% of what we breath in is nitrogen, so that has to be breathed out too. Of the air we breath in the amount that is oxygen is a rather small fraction and we don't even absorb that very efficiently. We breath out more oxygen than CO2, but not as much oxygen as we breath in of course.
It is about balance... fill a jungle with a million tigers and no way can that eco system operate properly. There will be lots of fights for territory and the other animals will be eaten rather quickly, then there will be some cannibalism and starvation. If no new species are introduced it is likely every edible animal will be eaten and not return. The tiger will either learn to eat fruit and plants or die out. In the case of climbate change of course the problems are rather worse. We have no idea how to live long term anywhere else.
"Triton which also happens to be like earth's - composed mostly of molecular nitrogen has, get this, a global warming problem."
What are you trying to say? That temperatures will vary anyway? It hasn't gone the way of Venus yet, but the sun is getting hotter too. Scientists believe that Venus was once very similar to earth is now, with water etc. The sun was much cooler then. However as the sun got hotter a chain of events seemed to have made it a rather nasty place to live. Temperatures naturally change in cycles. Are we doing enough damage to tip it far enough to fall over? There is only one way to find out... all we know is that once it starts to change things might snowball (pun intended) to the point where it is unstoppable. Bush jnr seems to be quite a gambler. Shame he doesn't realise the stakes.
Regarding your little chart... very interesting.
"my favorite part is where the earth's current temperature is the lowest it has been in 250 million years.
oh wait, i forgot, the rapid increase and decrease over 300 million years was caused by man."
The chart shows fluctuations in CO2 levels over the last 600 million years. It doesn't even show the increase in temperature since the last ice age... you know the one that occured about 10-20,000 years ago, when you could walk across the Bering strait, and much of Europe and North America were covered in sheets of ice kms thick.
When it comes time to draw that line to show how high it will go how far past the highest it has ever been will it go? Interesting gamble there.
BTW It seems that the Russians have not said they won't sign it anyway so it is not dead yet.
Durandal
12-04-2003, 10:40 AM
Russia produces much lower amount of such gases comparing to western countries so you can relax.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
I love laughing in the morning. If you take China out of the equation (the Chinese live in their own world) Russia has the largest tonneage per capita of uncontrolled industrial waste than any nation in the world currently.
I mean come on, you might as well be using nickle and mercury as fertilizer and breathmints over there.
And yes, Budanski rocks...
Kingpin
12-04-2003, 10:45 AM
Russia produces much lower amount of such gases comparing to western countries so you can relax.
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl
I love laughing in the morning. If you take China out of the equation (the Chinese live in their own world) Russia has the largest tonneage per capita of uncontrolled industrial waste than any nation in the world currently.
I mean come on, you might as well be using nickle and mercury as fertilizer and breathmints over there.
And yes, Budanski rocks...
Yes, we making some pollution (not as much as you said) but a spoke about global warming only. Here we're not on first positions.
Durandal
12-04-2003, 10:59 AM
Yes, we making some pollution (not as much as you said) but a spoke about global warming only. Here we're not on first positions.
I never said how much just the scale relative to the rest of the nations with a industry base. Russia is a cess pool when it comes to industrial waste.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.