19-02-2005 01:34									#151
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean [DanS] These predictions are based on models of unknown validity [/DanS] I never said that Kyoto was good. I want the Bush administration to acknowledge that there is a potential problem, and then to work on a solution. As of now, they are doing neither. Asmodean

I'll give you that but please give me that it is easier to predict economic activity out 10 years then to predict climate change out 100 years.

	19-02-2005 01:36									#152
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV The issue with Kyoto is that it screws nations like Canada and the United States, which have a developed industrial base, and it lets completely off the hook an la nation like China, which has no restrictions and is allowed to build factories and pollute like crazy in order to catch up with the rest.

How is that an issue? The rich pay, the poor catch up and then pay.

	19-02-2005 01:36									#153
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I meant that I would like to see the U.S. playing an active role in proposing an alternative to Kyoto, whilst at the same time working with scientists across the board to study tre long-time effects of global warming.

Something to that effect. I am all against Kyoto, too. But I don't really see the Bush administration pushing for alternatives. That's what I meant by them not taking the problem seriously.

Asmodean

	19-02-2005 01:41									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris How is that an issue? The rich pay, the poor catch up and then pay.

Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

	19-02-2005 02:39									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I do want to reiterate in case there is any doubt that modern anthropic CO2 emissions do indeed greatly exceed volcanic output.

also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

	19-02-2005 02:45									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

Erm, Kyoto will help the environment, if upheld. Should the EU and Russia seriosuly reduce their emissions (as they're supposed to), the environment will be much better off than if nothing was done. :duh:

	19-02-2005 02:49									#157
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

quote: volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources.

In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

	19-02-2005 02:52									#158
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Erm, Kyoto will help the environment, if upheld. Should the EU and Russia seriosuly reduce their emissions (as they're supposed to), the environment will be much better off than if nothing was done. :duh:

How will the environment be any better than it is now? lower temperatures and even lower CO2 levels do not in and of themselves produce an environement any more inviting than one with higher temperatures or a higher CO2 level.

	19-02-2005 02:53									#159
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor quote: volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from anthropogenic sources. In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

It certainly derserves to be understood so we know if we will be happy with the results of such a change.

	19-02-2005 03:00									#160
	Remove this text

It's awfully simplistic to suggest that more deserts in say, Africa will be 'balanced' out by a more habitable Siberia.

	19-02-2005 03:01									#161
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo How will the environment be any better than it is now? lower temperatures and even lower CO2 levels do not in and of themselves produce an environement any more inviting than one with higher temperatures or a higher CO2 level.

I mean "better" 1. in comparison to what would happen if we continue to be pollution-happy and 2. with regard to the weather pattern human societies have grown with. With a dramatic change in the weather pattern, you'll bring a dramatic change to millions, if not billions, of humans. And the transition period is likely to be less than pleasant.

	19-02-2005 03:01									#162
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo I do want to reiterate in case there is any doubt that modern anthropic CO2 emissions do indeed greatly exceed volcanic output. also check this link comparing anthrogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2 outputs.

The key part is here:

quote: "Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.

Notice how we aren't talking about just CO2 but all green house gases. Also Hawaii's volcanos are a rare breed of hot spot volcanos which are not typical. They are far more mafic and have fewer desolved gases then a subduction zone volcanos. Most of the world's volcanos are found either on midocean ridges or subduction zones so if we wanted a better idea of the exact composition of the gases released then Hawaii is not a good measurment.

We also have to consider production of green house gases from the decay of biological material and production of biological processes.

There are six main green house gases:

1) Co2
2) CH4
3) NOx
4) Hydrofluorocarbons
5) Perflourocarbons
6) Sulfurhexafloride

1,3, 6 often come in volcanos, 2 is mostly produced by biological decay, 4 & 5 are mostly man made. If we run the numbers to include all of these agents instead of just CO2 I believe you will find the results are much different.

	19-02-2005 03:09									#163
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Your point is only valid if kyoto supporters want to switch their backing from doing so on the grounds that Kyoto will help the environment to the grounds that a transfer of economic capital from wealthy nations to poor nations is a good idea.

Not really, given that rich countries are already producing the vast majority of CO2 emissions.

The talks for post-2012 are already underway, and the Kyoto signataries are trying to get India and Japan with them at an ulterior date. If they are succesfull, America will be isolated.

	19-02-2005 03:10									#164
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor In sum, we are producing 30 times what would be normally produced? Shouldn't it be considered a problem?

Even if we assume these numbers are correct (big if) we are still only looking at one green house gas. Methane (CH4) is a much better green house agent then CO2 and it's naturally produced by the decay of organic matter.

To see things clearly we need to detail what percent of each green house gas is man made then weight each percentage according to how efficient each gas is at trapping heat.

	19-02-2005 03:11									#165
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Not really, given that rich countries are already producing the vast majority of CO2 emissions.

That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.

	19-02-2005 03:19									#166
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.

First, I've seen other stats that contradict you.

Second, OECD+America is what portion of the world's population?

	19-02-2005 03:19									#167
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin That's wrong. See the figure I posted above and you will see the third world already produces more then the US and EU combined and they will double output in ten years.

You means, the guys who are about 9 times more numerous than us?

	19-02-2005 03:23									#168
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/doc...nhouse_gas.html

This is a very informative link which details not just CO2 but all the green house gases. Water vapor is important but humans don't really effect that so here are the other results:

CO2 - 55% come from human activities.

Methane - 15% comes from human activities.

Halocarbons - 15% from human activites.

N2O - 5% Human activity.

O3 - 15% human activity.

Do you see why some people only want to talk about CO2 instead of total green house gases produced?

	19-02-2005 03:24									#169
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor You means, the guys who are about 9 times more numerous than us?

I agree that is right. Boris made the claim that the 1st world produces most of the world's green house gases and that is totally wrong. Sure, rich people produce more per capita since they consume more but the unwashed masses still produce more over all.

	19-02-2005 03:26									#170
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Do you see why some people only want to talk about CO2 instead of total green house gases produced?

Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc.

It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

	19-02-2005 03:26									#171
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris First, I've seen other stats that contradict you.

Link them.

quote: Second, OECD+America is what portion of the world's population?

That doesn't matter. Your claim was that the US the EU prodice most of the world's green house gases so that they should be forced to pay for them. You have been shown to be wrong.

	19-02-2005 03:31									#172
	Put an end to popups!

BTW that link I listed above is very informative.

If CO2 is considered to trap 1 unit of heat then Methane traps 23 times as much, N2O captures 298 times as much, Perfluorocarbonstrap 6500-8700 times as much, Hydrofluorocarbons trap 140 to 11,700 times as much, Sulfur hexafluoride traps 23,900 times as much.

Do you see why we can't just look at CO2 but must look at total green house gases? The ones humans hardly produce at all do most of the green house effect. Sure we can still reduce outputs but CO2 is not the place to strike. The other ones are.

	19-02-2005 03:33									#173
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc. It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

N2O, Hydrofluorocarbons, Perflourocarbons, and Sulfurhexafloride are far more efficient green house gases which humans produce 5% - 15% of total output. It seems like these would give us more bang for the buck.

	19-02-2005 03:35									#174
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yeah, but how much of Hydrofluorocarbons or Sulfur hexafluoride are being produced, in comparison to CO2? If the production of these greenhouse gases is negligible in comparison to CO2, maybe CO2 should remian the priority.

And aren't Hydrofluorocarbons the (now banned) product used in aerosols? If so, I think there have been quite some political action against them already.

	19-02-2005 03:52									#175
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You are thinking of CFC or cloroflourocarbons.

BTW he's a nice picture of the carbon cycle from http://www.ecology.com/archived-links/greenhouse-gases/

It shows that most of the carbon has natural instead of man made sources.

Attachment: figure2.jpg
This has been downloaded 47 time(s).

Last edited by Oerdin on 19-02-2005 at 03:58

	19-02-2005 04:01									#176
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin You are thinking of CFC or cloroflourocarbons.

quote: It shows that most of the carbon has natural instead of man made sources.

Err, yeah, but all of that natural carbon (and even a little more) goes back to the surface. The reason why carbon increases in the atnosphere, according to that chart, is clearly mankind.

	19-02-2005 04:11									#177
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because CO2 is actually pretty easy to reduce? I mean, it's fairly doable to build nuclear plants, to have smaller cars that consume less, to increase public transportation, to have better standards for factories etc. It's much more difficult to bio-engineer cattle that doesn't fart.

CO2 accounts for 80% of green house gases by volume but by actual impact upon global warming it is only 25%-33% of total. That means human produced CO2 is 12.5%-16.5% of total green house impact.

	19-02-2005 04:15									#178
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Err, yeah, but all of that natural carbon (and even a little more) goes back to the surface. The reason why carbon increases in the atnosphere, according to that chart, is clearly mankind.

Well, yes. I don't see any way to put that to zero though. We can cut back but our efforts will be more then cancelled out unless we get the world's largest producers (the third world) to do the same. In the mean time we can likely get better results by going after the other five green house gases since removing one kg of those is worth several thousand kg of Carbon.

	19-02-2005 06:37									#179
	Increase Your PM Length

What happened to all the moral outrage? You post a few facts about global warming and everyone runs for the hills.

	19-02-2005 07:53									#180
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean I honestly, really resent that. Really...no kidding. Have I insulted you in any way? I am no zealot, and certainly no tree-hugger, or anything like that. I just take the point of view, that there is a risk that we know little about, and therefore it is far better to play safe. Since the potential risk involves the whole world, then the whole world has to play ball. That's all I'm saying. Asmodean

Then get the whole world to play ball. Just don't expect major industrialised countries to line up for economic dislocations while others skate due to trends that predate the negotiations of the accord.