Kyoto Treaty and Global Warming

Sig

Experienced Member
Joined
25 September 2000
Messages
1,604
Location
Tyson's Corner, VA
I thought this was an interesting perspective on the reality of potential benefits this agreement would or would not gain the planet.

****
About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect — the atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth — is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.

The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.

Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume, comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent — it's about 72 percent.

Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent, representing the percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).

But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3 percent is from human activity.

That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.

Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7 percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.

When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels — even if they triple or quadruple because of human activities — are all that important to global climate.

If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."

As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30 percent by 2010 — necessarily causing inestimable negative economic consequences — it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from the Kyoto protocol fast enough.

It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
 
I don't see anything surprising in those figures. However, the author's argument that what he or she perceives as a small change in greenhouse gas concentration (0.11%) must mean an equally small change in global warming is naive and incredibly unscientific.

Is 0.11% a small number? If you are talking about getting a 92.38% instead of a 92.49% on your Western History final, sure it is. If you are talking about the global change in concentration of a particular gas (or set of gases) since the industrial revolution, absolutely not.

This “small” increase in concentration has contributed to a change in global temperature of nearly 1 degree and increased sea level at least 4 inches in the last 100 years, according to the EPA. The fact is, not only does a small change in greenhouse gas concentration produce a measurable change in global temperature, but an increase in concentration will result in acceleration in the rate of temperature increase.

Also, particularly ineffective and just plain silly is the author’s claim that since greenhouse gases are responsible for the nice living-organism-friendly temperature of the Earth, it must be good and a little (or lot) more greenhouse gas cannot be too bad.

Of course, the greenhouse effect is needed for life to exist, but how hard it is to understand that the delicate balance that has kept planet's temperature stable for millions of years is in jeopardy when humans are able to trigger a change in the global temperature?

I’ve read that if, millions of years ago, Venus was only a few degrees cooler, the runaway climatic change responsible for the planet’s current scorching condition would not have occurred.
 
Last edited:
Also worth noting that natural events, like volcanos, do quite a bit to the ozone layer, etc.... the world is very resiliant by nature -- I'm not against being responsible by any means, but at the same time think that to believe mankind in the last 200 years has been able to signficantly affect global warming and other naturally occuring temperature changes is a bit arrogant. Some affect? Arguable, though I don't necessarily disagree. Major affect -- the evidence I don't think is there -- nor for long term effect.
 
Back
Top