Kyoto or just a big blow?
Global warming! AHHHHH!
But seriously folks, what is the actual deal with Kyoto, its affects, and the general effects of global warming? Lets see if we can work on there one at a time. Now seems like a good idea since there is a conference about it going on in Canada right now (even though there was a no-confidence vote in the government, more on that later perhaps).
Well Kyoto was an amendment to the original treaty: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was designed in 1997 to the original agreement that was put in place in 1992, to which the US signed on. In order for the treaty to be legally binding to its signatories, it needed to be approved by enough countries adding up to 55% of the total emissions. Now here is where the media and some others are either distorted or mislead...or lie. The US never signed on to Kyoto. Clinton's delegate to the conference supported the treaty in 1997 but, the Senate (that has to ratify the treaty) expressed that it did not support the treaty. Actually they voted in a resolution that several of the Kyoto Protocol's points were not acceptable, the margin of the vote was 95-0. They did not support it because it did not put any limits on developing countries that are major polluters with industrial rates growing very rapidly. Chief here is China which is now the 2nd biggest pollutor in the world. Because of this, the Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification and the US never signed on. Clinton knew it would not pass, but he supported the treaty so he didn't want it voted down. He knew he could not get it passed. Bush, when he took office in 2001, agreed with the Senate position and, after consultation, withdrew the US officially from the treaty instead of leaving us in non-binding limbo. The Kyoto Protocol was never binding for the US under Clinton or Bush and the US never signed on to it.
Now we need to look at the effects of the treaty on the signatories and the US. Take Canada for example: They have signed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 6% by 2012 from the baseline of 1997 values. Okay, good target. So far, they are up 24.2%. Oops. Unfortunately almost none of the signatories are even close to where they would have to be at this point but are going in the entirely opposite direction. Canada is one of the worst in the world by going in the other direction but almost all other European countries are still emitting more greenhouse gases instead of less. The average for western Europe is on the order of 6-10% more. The US on the other hand, has reduced greenhouse gases by 1% in the first 3 years of Bush being in office. I would post more data but there isn't any that i can find that is more recent. 2004 is the best i can do right now. The US has passed several resolutions and laws to limit greenhouse gases independently. Now i will admit that the US is the world's biggets pollutor and needs to work to reduce emissions but Kyoto seems like a poor way to go about it.
The third subject to look at is the effect of global warming. Problem is this, we really don't know how much global warming is going on right now. I think that its pretty obvious that there is some global warming but we really don't know its affects or the degree of its severity. It has been theorized that when global warming does occur, it actually creates more rain which makes more plants grow thereby reducing greenhouse gases and global warming.
Its very easy to say that the hurricanes and the like are the cause of global warming and that "the signs are obvious" but the science doesn't support it with any verifiable evidence. In one of the most recent studies done by Dr. Emanuel from Georgia Tech, they have noted an increase in hurricane strength over the last 30 years. Already people are pointing to this as evidence that global warming is to blame. But just listening to Dr. Emanuel, there are beyond doubts:
"One of the big challenges for everyone trying to sort out the issue is a paucity of good hurricane measurements before about 1950, Dr. Emanuel notes.
For an estimate of storms before then, researchers have to run a backward forecast, known as a hindcast. These hindcasts suggest that prior to the 1940s and '50s, the number of hurricanes eases through about 1900, then remains flat before 1900, Emanuel says.
Thus, he continues, at best the proponents of the natural-cycle notion have as few as two "peaks" and a "trough" to work with - not enough to firmly establish that it's a set of cycles at all.
Moreover, he adds, during much of the time that the oscillation was in cool phase, air pollution was high. This could mean that the cycle in sea-surface temperatures could be an artifact of air pollution, as it blows off North America toward Europe and cuts the amount of sunlight available to warm the sea surface."
Since the generally accepted problem is a lack of measurements, we really don't know how to gauge the hurricane seasons of last year and this year. We don't have any evidence to support it. Most scientists have come out and said that the hurricane strength has nothing to do with global warming. The slight rise in ocean temps cannot have caused an increase in strength like that. In addition, over the past 20 years there has not been a rise in the number of storm in the atlantic from older data that we do have and also, there has not been an increase in number or strength of storms in other areas of the world where typhoons and hurricanes are common.
We have similar problems with the ice caps because we DO know that they go through cyclic periods of warming and melting. We however don't have enough evidence to show that the melting that has anything to do global warming. Its possible that these things are affected by global warming, but there is no where near the amount of statistical evidence to form even a tenuous conclusion at this point, much less a strong indicator. We simply don't know what causes natural climate change.
Global Warming and Hurricanes
Global Warming?
But seriously folks, what is the actual deal with Kyoto, its affects, and the general effects of global warming? Lets see if we can work on there one at a time. Now seems like a good idea since there is a conference about it going on in Canada right now (even though there was a no-confidence vote in the government, more on that later perhaps).
Well Kyoto was an amendment to the original treaty: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was designed in 1997 to the original agreement that was put in place in 1992, to which the US signed on. In order for the treaty to be legally binding to its signatories, it needed to be approved by enough countries adding up to 55% of the total emissions. Now here is where the media and some others are either distorted or mislead...or lie. The US never signed on to Kyoto. Clinton's delegate to the conference supported the treaty in 1997 but, the Senate (that has to ratify the treaty) expressed that it did not support the treaty. Actually they voted in a resolution that several of the Kyoto Protocol's points were not acceptable, the margin of the vote was 95-0. They did not support it because it did not put any limits on developing countries that are major polluters with industrial rates growing very rapidly. Chief here is China which is now the 2nd biggest pollutor in the world. Because of this, the Kyoto Protocol was never submitted to the Senate for ratification and the US never signed on. Clinton knew it would not pass, but he supported the treaty so he didn't want it voted down. He knew he could not get it passed. Bush, when he took office in 2001, agreed with the Senate position and, after consultation, withdrew the US officially from the treaty instead of leaving us in non-binding limbo. The Kyoto Protocol was never binding for the US under Clinton or Bush and the US never signed on to it.
Now we need to look at the effects of the treaty on the signatories and the US. Take Canada for example: They have signed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 6% by 2012 from the baseline of 1997 values. Okay, good target. So far, they are up 24.2%. Oops. Unfortunately almost none of the signatories are even close to where they would have to be at this point but are going in the entirely opposite direction. Canada is one of the worst in the world by going in the other direction but almost all other European countries are still emitting more greenhouse gases instead of less. The average for western Europe is on the order of 6-10% more. The US on the other hand, has reduced greenhouse gases by 1% in the first 3 years of Bush being in office. I would post more data but there isn't any that i can find that is more recent. 2004 is the best i can do right now. The US has passed several resolutions and laws to limit greenhouse gases independently. Now i will admit that the US is the world's biggets pollutor and needs to work to reduce emissions but Kyoto seems like a poor way to go about it.
The third subject to look at is the effect of global warming. Problem is this, we really don't know how much global warming is going on right now. I think that its pretty obvious that there is some global warming but we really don't know its affects or the degree of its severity. It has been theorized that when global warming does occur, it actually creates more rain which makes more plants grow thereby reducing greenhouse gases and global warming.
Its very easy to say that the hurricanes and the like are the cause of global warming and that "the signs are obvious" but the science doesn't support it with any verifiable evidence. In one of the most recent studies done by Dr. Emanuel from Georgia Tech, they have noted an increase in hurricane strength over the last 30 years. Already people are pointing to this as evidence that global warming is to blame. But just listening to Dr. Emanuel, there are beyond doubts:
"One of the big challenges for everyone trying to sort out the issue is a paucity of good hurricane measurements before about 1950, Dr. Emanuel notes.
For an estimate of storms before then, researchers have to run a backward forecast, known as a hindcast. These hindcasts suggest that prior to the 1940s and '50s, the number of hurricanes eases through about 1900, then remains flat before 1900, Emanuel says.
Thus, he continues, at best the proponents of the natural-cycle notion have as few as two "peaks" and a "trough" to work with - not enough to firmly establish that it's a set of cycles at all.
Moreover, he adds, during much of the time that the oscillation was in cool phase, air pollution was high. This could mean that the cycle in sea-surface temperatures could be an artifact of air pollution, as it blows off North America toward Europe and cuts the amount of sunlight available to warm the sea surface."
Since the generally accepted problem is a lack of measurements, we really don't know how to gauge the hurricane seasons of last year and this year. We don't have any evidence to support it. Most scientists have come out and said that the hurricane strength has nothing to do with global warming. The slight rise in ocean temps cannot have caused an increase in strength like that. In addition, over the past 20 years there has not been a rise in the number of storm in the atlantic from older data that we do have and also, there has not been an increase in number or strength of storms in other areas of the world where typhoons and hurricanes are common.
We have similar problems with the ice caps because we DO know that they go through cyclic periods of warming and melting. We however don't have enough evidence to show that the melting that has anything to do global warming. Its possible that these things are affected by global warming, but there is no where near the amount of statistical evidence to form even a tenuous conclusion at this point, much less a strong indicator. We simply don't know what causes natural climate change.
Global Warming and Hurricanes
Global Warming?
posted by Maddawg at 11/30/2005 11:19:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home