Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases takes Effect

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

doole:
Responding to theory instead of fact can be damaging.

As can ignoring theory until it's a fact. Yes, the car might be on a different road, or then again it might not. If the latter then by the time you can see it, it will be too late to get out of the way. If you already start to act now, it won't matter which road it was on.

(didn't use your shark repellant analogy as I never carry it on any dives!!:D )
 
Kim,
Then let's bring China and India into the treaty. As you said, us divers are always preparing for the unexpected, why would you (we) leave out these two countries in such a monumental treaty? Is this the unexepected you refer to, then ignore?
 
Personally I think that especially China should already be in the treaty. India still has around 85% of it's national production in the Agrarian sector - and that is mostly at a subsistence level anyway. China is a different matter - it is already one of the leading importers of almost all raw materials, including oil; it's becoming increasingly industrialised. If China wants to produce the goods for the world, they should play by the same rules.
The trouble is that it is hard to put pressure on them while they can point at the American example. That's why I think that it would be very useful if America did join - although I'm not holding my breath!
 
Don't hold your breath, Number one rule of diving, here too. ;)
And the " you jump first" is BS, we may lead the way in many things, but stupidity is not one of them.
 
FWIW I found the research that I mentioned earlier:

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666

Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans
Climate warming likely to impact water resources in regions around the globe

Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.
In a new study conducted with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI),Tim Barnett and David Pierce of Scripps Institution used a combination of computer models and real-world "observed" data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans. The authors make the case that their results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically, or by human activities.

"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps. Barnett says he was "stunned" by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. "The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming."



At a news briefing (Feb. 17 at 2 p.m. EST) and symposium presentation (Feb. 18 at 1:45-4:45 p.m. EST) during the 2005 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Washington, D.C., Barnett will discuss the details of the study and explain why the results hold implications for millions of people in the near future.

According to Barnett, the climate mechanisms behind the ocean study will produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land. In the decades immediately ahead, the changes will be felt in regional water supplies, including areas impacted by accelerated glacier melting in the South American Andes and in western China, putting millions of people at risk without adequate summertime water.

Similarly, recent research by Barnett and his colleagues with the Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative analyzed climate warming impacts on the western United States using one of the models involved in the new study. The earlier study concluded that climate warming will likely alter western snow pack resources and the region's hydrological cycle, posing a water crisis in the western U.S. within 20 years.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," said Barnett. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers."

In the new study, Barnett and his colleagues used computer models of climate to calculate human-produced warming over the last 40 years in the world's oceans. In all of the ocean basins, the warming signal found in the upper 700 meters predicted by the models corresponded to the measurements obtained at sea with confidence exceeding 95 percent. The correspondence was especially strong in the upper 500 meters of the water column.

It is this high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming.

In addition to Barnett and Pierce, coauthors of the study include Krishna Achutarao, Peter Gleckler and Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The global climate models used in the study included the Parallel Climate Model from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Department of Energy (DOE) and the HadCM3 from the Hadley Centre (United Kingdom). The sharing of these model results made this study possible, says Barnett. The work was a contribution on behalf of the International Detection and Attribution Group (IDAG), which is sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Climate Change Data Detection Program, a jointly funded NOAA and DOE program. Additional support was provided by DOE through support of PCMDI and Scripps.

# # #


Scripps Institution of Oceanography, at the University of California, San Diego, is one of the oldest, largest, and most important centers for global science research and graduate training in the world. The National Research Council has ranked Scripps first in faculty quality among oceanography programs nationwide. The scientific scope of the institution has grown since its founding in 1903 to include biological, physical, chemical, geological, geophysical, and atmospheric studies of the earth as a system. Hundreds of research programs covering a wide range of scientific areas are under way today in 65 countries. The institution has a staff of about 1,300, and annual expenditures of approximately $140 million from federal, state, and private sources. Scripps operates one of the largest U.S. academic fleets with four oceanographic research ships and one research platform for worldwide exploration.
 
If China wants to produce the goods for the world, they should play by the same rules.
The trouble is that it is hard to put pressure on them while they can point at the American example. That's why I think that it would be very useful if America did join - although I'm not holding my breath![/QUOTE]

The problem with China is that their policy seems to always be America first. When the US gives in, China does nothing anyway. The best rule when dealing with them is to believe nothing they say until they prove it with real commitment. I'd have more faith in Diplomacy with India than China. I say, let the French argue for it. They claim to be the diplomatic wonder of the world, let them prove it by convincing China.
 
WASHINGTON – A team of international scientists says climate models showing global warming are based on a "fairy tale" of computer projections.
The scientists met Monday on Capitol Hill to expose what they see as a dearth of scientific evidence about the theory of global warming.

Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.

Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."

Monday's luncheon was sponsored by Frontiers of Freedom Institute and titled "Whatever Happened to Global Warming? Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol."

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with the University of Virginia and the Environmental Policy Project, called IPCC's global warming projections "completely unrealistic."

"Prediction is a very difficult business, particularly about the future," he said.

'Extreme Scenarios'

Singer accused IPCC of "assuming extreme scenarios of population growth and fossil fuel consumption" and called on the Bush administration to "assemble another team using the IPCC report, using the same facts" to "write a different summary."

Dr. Ulrich Berner, a geologist with the Federal Institute for Geosciences in Germany, said global temperatures have varied greatly in the earth's history and are unrelated to human activity.

"The climate of the past has varied under natural conditions without the influence of humans," Berner said.

Berner declared that an extensive analysis of carbon dioxide (C02) concentrations in the ice core of Greenland showed that elevated C02 in the atmosphere does not necessarily lead to temperature increases.

"There are numerous temperature changes which are not mimicked by the CO2 concentration," he explained.

"Carbon dioxide doesn't police climatic changes. Climatic changes have always occurred and will for the future always occur," Berner added.

Singer agreed. "The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940. This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."

Blame It on the Sun

Singer pointed to the sun as a major culprit in climate change. "The sun is responsible for most, and perhaps all of the short-term climate changes we observe," he said.

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/myths.html
 
"Climate Science Does Not Support the Kyoto Protocol."

Like I said. It isn't a scientific agreement, it's a political/economic one.

And heavily biased toward certain countries at that.

Pure crap - of the worst kind. Breeds cynicism. Throw it away and bring in something based in fact.
 
Even if, for arguments sake, we are causing some sort of global climate change, we are already fixing whatever it is we were doing wrong in the first place. Once China and India catch up with the proverbial Jonses, the world will pick a new cause to ***** and whine about. Change is inevitible, and would happen with or without our petty interference.

Food for thought: The earth went through two rapid global climate changes (I think we've been calling `em "Ice Ages") fairly recently in geological terms, without even so much as an Iron Age to help things along
 
I would have to point out (as I hang out with various oceanographers and climatologists), that a non-consensus on global warming is very different from a consensus against, or a consenus for.

There are plenty of climatologists that think it's real. There's plenty that don't. Both of these camps are made up of professionals that know their material. You can always find plenty of material online that supports or poo-poo's global warming... I see many of you have already.

I wish the people would hurry up and make up their minds already.
 

Back
Top Bottom