E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBEIJING - China's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday Canada's decision to quit the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions was "regrettable" and called on the country to continue abiding by its commitments on climate change.
On Monday, Canada became the first country to announce it would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada, a major energy producer, has long complained that the agreement is unworkable because it excludes many significant emitters from binding action.
The United Nations climate conference reached an agreement Sunday on a new program that was meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change in the coming decades.
China, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases from human activity, has long insisted the Kyoto Protocol remain a foundation of international efforts to curb these emissions causing global warming.
"It is regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community for Canada to leave the Kyoto Protocol at a time when the Durban meeting, as everyone knows, made important progress by securing a second phase of commitment to the Protocol," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a news briefing.
"We also hope that Canada will face up to its due responsibilities and duties, and continue abiding by its commitments, and take a positive, constructive attitude towards participating in international cooperation to respond to climate change."
China's state news agency, Xinhua, denounced Canada's decision.
"Canada's so-called reason for dropping out of the agreement is preposterous and completely an excuse to shirk responsibility," Xinhua said.
The commentary urged Canada to "retract its decision and return to the Kyoto Protocol, so that it can make positive contribution to the cause of global emissions reductions."
Legally binding emissions reductions
At recently concluded climate change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, China won an extension of the protocol until 2017, but also bowed to pressure to launch later talks for a new pact that would legally oblige all the big emitters to take action.
Under Kyoto, poorer countries including China, take voluntary, non-binding steps to curb the growth of emissions while they focus on economic development, and rich nations must sign up to quantitative cuts in emissions.
The United States has refused to join the protocol and argued that China and other big emerging emitters should come under a legally binding framework that does away with the either-or distinction between advanced and developing countries.
In the past century, as the climate has warmed, sea level rise has accelerated. Scientists predict it will only increase, and they're studying changes in the ocean and land to better understand how and why the water is rising. NBC's Anne Thompson reports for "Changing Planet," produced by NBC Learn in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. Canada's previous Liberal government signed the accord but did little to implement it and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government never embraced it.
"The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, United States and China, and therefore cannot work," Kent said on Monday. "It's now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it's an impediment."
Canada's exit no surprise
Monday's announcement was not a surprise. Canada faced international criticism at the recent climate talks in South Africa amid reports it would pull out of Kyoto. Kent had said previously that signing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change was one of the previous government's biggest blunders.
The accord requires countries to give a year's notice to withdraw. Kent said the move saves Canada $14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets.
"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada," Kent said.
Harper's Conservative government is reluctant to hurt Canada's booming oil sands sector, which is the country's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases and a reason it has reneged on its Kyoto commitments.
Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves. But critics say the enormous amount of energy and water needed in the extraction process increases greenhouse gas emissions.
Abdication of responsibility?
Kent's announcement drew immediate criticism from environmental groups. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada said in a statement that it is further signal that the Harper government is more concerned about protecting polluters than people.
Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network Canada said formally withdrawing from Kyoto after the Durban, South Africa conference is a slap in the face of the international community.
The world's glaciers are shrinking at alarming rates. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and Douglas Hardy of UMass-Amherst discuss glaciers and how they melt, and pay special attention to Africa's tallest mountain, Mt. Kilimanjaro. NBC's Anne Thompson reports for "Changing Planet," produced by NBC Learn in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
"It's a total abdication of our responsibilities," McKinnon said.
Opposition New Democrat lawmaker Megan Leslie disputed the dollar figures involved and said there are no penalties under Kyoto. Leslie said pulling out saves the Conservatives from having to report that Canada is falling short of its Kyoto targets.
"It's like we're the kid in school who knows they're gonna fail the class, so we have to drop it before that actually happens," Leslie said.
Scientists say that if levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, eventually the world's climate will reach a tipping point, with irreversible melting of some ice sheets and a several-foot rise in sea levels.
They cannot pinpoint exactly when that would happen, but the two-decade-long climate negotiations have been focused on preventing global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above current levels by the end of this century.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Read more content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Environmental criticism from a country where you need a miner's helmut to see through the smog.
There is NO SUCH THING as man made climate change (global warming). The entire solar system is warming, as indicated by ice caps melting and other indicators. warming historically proceeds carbon level rises. Our sun has far far more effect than we could possibly have. This con job was set up by Maurice Strong(billionaire banker), Ken Lay and Al Gore to provide a global tax basis to support global governance. We also will have the effect of an imminent ice age as indicated by the sun spots and recent wet periods. More warming means far greater food production, which the globalist cannot tolerate(reduces their control if resources are abundant). My garden does much better with more heat. So, I am in favor and strongly support more and rapid warming of the planet. Kudos to Canada!
Mar's icecaps are melting.
greater food production except when rains no longer move to the middle of our country and droughts are worse. What about the 40 percent of the world that gets their water from himalayas and will soon have no ice melt from glaciers? What happens then? I agree with Canada and the US that Kyoto is one messed up piece of legislation. If China (where by the way only a third of the fresh water is safe to drink) was serious about saving Kyoto they would include themselves as a developed carbon producer. But to deny the existence of man-made global warming is asinine. Bruce did you know that we can now trace back CO2 levels through those ice melts you mention going back millennia and at no time in the Earth's history have they been this high. I'm a registered Republican but i hate it when members of my party deny the existence of global warming altogether.
Slight Right,
I am a Republican and I believe in global warming my argument is I don't believe it is man made considering that MT. ST. Helens put more greenhouse gases in the air than man has since the beginning of time and the models that were used to show we were causing the warm-up have been proved to have been manipulated to gain the desired results.
How I envy Canadas leadership...how sad our leadership is like an albatross around Americas throat......
Climate change has happened since the earth formed, and will continue to happen with or without mankind. We should invest money in acclimating to the earth rather than waste it thinking we can affect her cycles.
"The entire solar system is warming....."? Really?
Thanks for letting us know early on in your post that we were being lectured by a 1 watt bulb. Otherwise, we might have had to read the rest of the post to figure that out.
art, What do you envy about Canada's leadership in regard to this article? If you're talking about the leadership in Canada leaving the treaty, then the U.S. was the real leader since we never ratified it. I don't disagree with you on the quality of U.S. leadership however.
Dark Guardian, you are incorrect in your statement about Mt. St. Helens. Volcanic CO2 emissions amount to only 1% of the amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels.
China has a lot of nerve criticizing anybody since they are the worst polluters in the world and were not required to limit emissions under Kyoto.
Bruce is a testament to the dumbing down of the USA.
Bruce - Do you still believe the world is flat and Galileo was a heretic?
That said, I completely agree with Canada's action. If the the two biggest economies in the world don't have a binding commitment, why should anyone else.
Art: How true.... When our northern neighbor is smart enough to initiate a business friendly environment, drill for their own resources (aka oil/etc.) AND are smart and courageous enough to publicly denounce the biggest scam in history (aka global warming - err sorry they changed its name since it started getting colder so it is NOW called climate change) their economy is now growing much faster than the U.S.
So sad that we have an administration that is (purposefully??) damaging our economy and our standing in the world (Iran is literally LAUGHING at us and China is now giving US advice on how to grow our economy?!?!?). BTW, did you hear that Obama went to an Army/Navy football game recently? He sat on the Army side for half the game then sat on the Navy side for half the game. Our president is so incompetent he can't even make a decision which FOOTBALL TEAM to root for??
@ProBusiness: Last I checked he was the commander in chief of all armed forces. Dividing his time equally between both of their sidelines hardly makes him incompetent.
Yep,
Looks like Canada has a Teabag Government also, just like Great Britain. Hopefully we will defeat the Tea Baggers in 2012 or we will become the 3rd nation with an irrational reactionary government (Tea Baggers)
Magnum Serpentine
I bet those cavemen who lived when the ice age was ending and the glaciers were disappearing from what is now the United States thought the world was ending too! Give us a break! How many times has the earth frozen then thawed, then did it all over again? The sun, and any slight change in our orbit has much more to do with how the temperatures go than anything you piddly humans can do. Stop agrandizing yourselves for political purposes.
I think that Myan date of 2012 is when the visitors from other intelligent life sources are coming back to see if this one has gotten any smarter. Which, no doubt means we are in real trouble.
i love it when climate change critics use the argument that it's cold so global warming doesn't exist. you just pointed out in a very bold way how gnorant you are about the subject pro business, not that your name didn't already do that for you.
Ruken: Just confirms Obama can't make a decision.
Magnum: So call Canada a "Teabag" government but they ARE growing and the U.S. is not. What does that tell you about the correct policies for economic growth? Tea Party has it right. This country cannot grow with the redistributive policies of this incompetent president. A defeat of the "Tea Baggers" (as you state) and a reelection of Obama might be your desire but will be the final nail in the death of our great country.
Just remember "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" (great quote by Margaret Thatcher).
@ProBusiness: Just proves he is polite and wants to treat all members of the armed forces equally.
I name thee "Circle Jerkus Maximus, er Protocol".
I've got a solution to climate change. Figure out a way to stop the Earth from rotating on its axis. If we can eventually stop it then we will truly have an unchanging climate. After a couple of years of not rotating one side would be approximately -260F and the other side approximately +200F. Then we could work on more important matters like splashless urinal pads!
Yes natural cycles occur with Earth
However when you bulldoze millions of acres of old growth forest and replace those acres with carbon producing industries, people, energy producing and consumptions its pretty easy to see that man is DEFINITELY having an affect.
bottom line since the industrial evolution and the continuing of Earths nations becoming industrialized you can easily see how mans involvement is escalating the warming process to levels that the species on this planet can not adapt to.
Global warming is very real, and man clearly has it's hands in its accelerated pace.. Common sense really
Kudos to the morons that still deny man-made global warming. To paraphrase a line from a fairly popular movie, "when you take on a lost cause, you really commit!"
Criticism coming from China is exquisitely ironic, though. We pulled out of Kyoto (at least according to the Bush excuse) because the treaty is flawed in exactly the way Canada has said it is.
Solution? An accord that holds everyone accountable. Chances of that happening? Zero.
The world is overpopulated as it is. Over the next 100 years, famine should return plenty of land to animals that had it stolen out from under them, and human bodies make great fertilizer.
We get what we pay for; or should I say, our children get what we pay for. Who ever said the sins of the father are not visited on the son?
The solar system is not warming; you have no data to support that, you just pulled it out of your ass. And when you're willing to lie about something as simple as that, there is no reason to believe you're telling the truth about anything else.
Of course china supports a treaty that handcuffs their competition and doesnt touch them. This has always been about kneecapping the developed world. If it was really about climate, future chinese emissions wouldnt be any more acceptable than future OECD emissions.
I have to agree with Canada's move to opt out of the Kyoto treaty. While the US isn't bound by the treaty we are slowly moving to improve conditions, but why should we or Canada play by that treaty or any other treaty if the developing nations, or China don't have to. And China will never agree to something that would impede their economic strength.
Toasty McGrath --There are many sources to indicate the solar system is warming.
"Several planets and moons in the solar system are showing signs of heating, including the earth itself. But the source of the heating has not yet been conclusively identified and may not be direct sunlight. Bill Hamilton, Executive Director of Skywatch International, Inc. collected articles about signs of accelerated heating in the solar system that are excerpted below."
http://www.timestar.org/solarheating.htm
China should keep its trap shut. They are the biggest polluters and liars in the world.One needs to really look at the Kyoto protocol and why China likes it. It is non-binding and unenforceable. So, what good is it but for BS propaganda.
@Bruce, while our climate has evolved over the ages from having no ice anywhere to being an ice world, doesn't it make sense to NOT pollute the only home we have in the Universe? Do you $hit your sheets and then lay in those same be$hitted sheets? Prolly not. If you don't do that to your sheets, why do you allow Corporations to do that to the only home WE have? By not being conscientious stewards of the ONLY home we have, we're $hitting sheets. Wake up my friend, wake up because the BS you're sold by the rich looking to continue getting richer is only straining our home.
@ProBusiness:
Since the Army/Navy game began, EVERY President has watched half the game from the Army side and half the game from the Navy side, not just Obama.
How is it possible you don't know this?? Was that the first time you ever paid any attention to the game? Every year the seated POTUS attends the game and does this - it's protocol!! Geez... I'm no fan of Obama, but I know the rules governing the Army/Navy game and it's been like this since the game began!!
Toasty McGrath: The solar system is not warming...LOL
Go to NASA and look it up. They say all planets in our solar system are in fact warming about the same.
"China's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday Canada's decision to quit the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions was "regrettable" and called on the country to continue abiding by its commitments on climate change."
This is TOO FUNNY.
China, easily the World's largest emitter of Carbon pollution, is criticizing Canada for opting out of the Kyoto agreement, when China refused to be bound by any calls to limit their own pollution.
Can anyone spell HYPOCRITE?
Australia is stating that their electrical bills will be increasing from 300 to 400% due to pending CO2 regulations...
WIDELY-HELD assumptions that climate change is responsible for an upsurge in extreme drought, flood and storm events are not supported by a landmark review of the science. see http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/review-fails-to-support-climate-change-link/story-e6frg6xf-1226198360121
The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. see http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html
Or this concerning NO indication of sea level rising -
So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by
rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no
trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend,
absolutely no trend.
see http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm
But you can believe what you want, because MSNBC will not report opposing views to AGW...
Totally respect canada for their stand on this nonsense ''"It's now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it's an impediment." All this {manmade} climate change religion is a bunch of bull. What America needs is a manhattan type project to become energy independent utilizing all our energy resources ,oil {anwar} Coal liquification to replace middle east oil,natural gas,nuclear and of course renewable sources.
The USA just needs to put the final touches on theronuclear fusion and then we can move off of fossil fuels for electricity altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power
Fusion is the power of the future; and it always will be. ;)
peanutGalleryTheater,
That is what they were saying 50+years ago...
I guess they were correct, 'Fusion the power of the future'...
We just have to keep waiting for that FUTURE...
In the mean time there are alternatives that are more energy efficient and cause less environmental impact...
Research 'Hydrated Methane' or we could convert to NG like the WORLD is doing. Unlike the USA, which keeps chasing 'pile dreams', pushing corn based ethanol, and buying 'Rare Earths' from China...
GOOD FOR CANADA !!!!!!!!!!!
Another nation now sees the light . These protocols are nothing but a scam . Just another way to extort money from all nations .
I'm not saying we should do nothing about the problem , we must do something about it. My feeling is each nation should do as much as they can at home and NOT PAY ANOTHER NATION FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING . Carbon credits is a money making fraud and we all know it . There are things third world countries can do to help themselves while developing there nation and economy . Problem there is they want to be paid for it . Sorry guys the world is broke and no money for you.
bob
So you just want to pass the costs of disrupting the climate to your children?
To our children? They are the very ones to finally declare that man-made global warming is a farce, and refuse to pay kyoto-type fines. Don't worry about "our children." And as for China, when are we going to tell 'em off once and for all? Hurrah for Canada.
Toasty McGrath "So you just want to pass the costs of disrupting the climate to your children?"
Along with the $15 Trillion in debt we've run up in recent years.
"Under Kyoto, poorer countries including China..." Excuse me!!! China poorer? Poorer than what other country on the face of the Earth? The U.S.? We're so far in debt that we qualify as a third-world country. That whole treaty is a sham that lets "poorer" nation continue to destroy the environment for the sake of economic growth. Phooey!
So Canada's economy will suffer because of new regs while the "poorer" countries like China can voluntarily, but won't follow them. Sounds like a cheap way to get their economy bigger while the western world suffers more. Good for Canada. I support our little brother to the north!
"poorer" countries like China??? While the west spends more to meet Kyoto goals, they become less competitive in the marketplace. Meanwhile, China, that "poor" country gains a huge economic advantage because they don't have to invest as much in environmental emissions requirements. Kyoto, IMHO, has never truly been about the "environment."
This is another example of why Canada is better governed than the United States. It won't commit its nation to a policy of redistribution of it's wealth to achieve some unattainable goal.
USA as a country isnt committing to it either. Just the socialists and we all know socialism doesnt work if you dont have productive people to steal from.
Let me clear this up in my mind. China, who does not adhere to Kyoto, is angry about richer countries not shutting down their industry and outsourcing it to them.
yup. Kyoto is great at kneecapping the competition. China understands the reality of it. Now Canada does too. Ausies will too as soon as they start getting their new electric bills.
Viva Canada!
Why would they. It led to them being covered in glacier 10,000 years ago.
Gosh. It's preposterous for Canada to opt out of a wealth redistribution scheme led by China.
It's also Politically Incorrect.
Hmmmm.
My hat is off to you folks up North.
Too bad the goof ball in D.C. doesn't have the same guts.
that's what happens when you have a real leader governing not the feckless wimp we have
I'm as anti-obama as you can get but he's not trying to push the US ino the Kyoto crap. He would like to but it would be political suicide (kinda like obamacare).
LetUsReason - It would be hard to for President Obama to pull out of a treaty we aren't part of to begin with. But hey, never pass up an opportunity to make an ideology based slam at our President.
And note that the Canadian Prime Minister did not deny global warming or that it is man made. He justly points out that if China and the US aren't subject to limits, there is no point in anyone else being limited.
Charlie said:
He did not say that Obama should pull out of the treaty we are not part of - he complimented Canada on doing what they did and then said that Obama needed more "guts" (like Canada).
So I guess you were the one taking an opportunity to bash someone without reading their post correctly.
Yeah, it takes guts to @!$%# over our children and grandchildren just so we can live a cushy lifestyle without paying the full price.
The guts from admitting that these power-grabbing schemes arent going to solve any problems. It would be an even bigger disaster to think you're solving a problem while it continues to grow to sunsolveable size. You gotta get the question right before you can figure out the right answer.
Kyoto is a joke but the real shame is that nothing will get done about global warming, which does exist, because of how ridiculous Kyoto is.
Canada is starting to wake up to the global warming scam.
While industry like the oil sands may or may not be contributing to climate change, if it exists at all (we could argue either way forever). There is truth that the oil sands are destroying the immediate environment and effecting the population surronding them. They may not be destroying the planet but they are destryoing a portion of it and that can't be disputed.
Adam - Anytime a human being puts up a building or lays down a road we are detroying the immediate environment. Guess we should move back into caves or grass/animal skin huts.
Well, there's the myth of development.
More likely Canada has a direct interest in the ice caps melting, as it will open up trade routes for them. Of course, it comes at the cost of third-world lives, but who cares about them...
Toasty, that would take a seriously sinister mind and as much as I don't want to believe people like that exist, it has become evident that seemingly good people can design the most vile of plots. When it comes to nationalism people are blinded by the benefit their counrties GDP will experience. They are blinded from the suffering it will inevitably cause others. "The American Century" comes to mind.
China complaining about anything is like Obama complaining about Chicago corruption.
Mr grover & the gop & the rushbo tell you if we don't build the keystone pipeline, china will buy all canadian shale oil which requires canada to double their co2 output. But china has most to loose in climate change & is the world's largest producer of renewables.
Just because the proposed pipeline would go to a Texas refinery, doesn't mean the refined products would not be sold to China or another high bidder.
China is the biggest polluter on the planet and they're bit-ching about Canada? LMAO
Pretty much. I agree to environmental reforms, but making it so the two biggest world economies (China and the USA) have loopholes is just retarded.
You mean giving money to China and others for no good reason? Canada ain't the U.S.
China lecturing Canada on abiding by Kyoto? Are you serious? I am glad, however, that Canada is finally coming to its senses. Looks like the climate change stooges are losing the debate. This is a precursor to what is about to happen in 2012. The libs will lose the Senate, the White House and a golden opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court to a liberal majority. Obama has set the liberal moverment back a decade with his incompetence.
This issue, as I see it, it not whether or not global warming exists but rather what is the driver of this climatic condition. The proponents of AGW will tell you that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of the current global warming condition. Recently, based on the AGW model, the expectation is for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 3.0°C to 4.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). Since the current data in not in their favor, this year they scaled back their doomsday prediction for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 1.5°C to 2.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). In order to keep the fear in place, they also provided a fatal prognosis for the Earth at this new 2.0°C prediction.
It is interesting that the IPCC consensus recommendation was to prevent the increase of temperature from rising greater than 2.0°C (for the global land and sea temperature) from today's benchmark. Frankly whatever we do, the previous glacial-interglacial cycles tell us that maintaining such a difference 2.0°C from today's benchmark or higher is expected. Additionally this recorded data demonstrates a swing toward the glacial cycle (or more global cooling). And although the ice core data is not necessary indicative of actually how high this temperature increase can go or how long it is maintained prior to this reversal of global warming, it appears to be in the range of hundreds of years. Problem with ice core data is that it must be cold enough to maintain ice in order hold the atmospheric data.
Actually the glacial - interglacial cycle is approximately 100,000 years long on average (per 650,000 y...ears of ice core data from the Vostok station). The greatest heat-up is within the 20,000 years surrounding it's peak increase. On average the peak increase is approximately +12.0°C difference between glacial period (global ice age) to the interglacial period (global warming age). In the last 10,000 years (with the exception of the "Little Ice Age"), the Earth has attained an average fluxional increase of between 10.0°C and 11.0°C from the last global ice age. So it appears it still has room to get hotter before it starts cooling...off again. I believe the current average is 10.65°C difference from the last Ice Age.
Based on past evidence, no matter what we do, global warming will continue until it peaks and then it will begin it gradual decline toward the next Ice Age. During all the major climate changes in the past, the concentration of CO2 had little influence on the overall global climate condition. Per this previously recorded ice core data, it takes 80,000 to 90,000 years to dip into a global Ice Age climatic condition - but only 10,000 to 20,000 to spike up to a global warming climatic condition. And just like clockwork, each time the Earth's global land-sea temperature was able to maintain a +12.0° Centigrade difference (or more) from the last global Ice Age, the Earth's global climate condition slowly decreased back to the next Ice Age, despite that fact that the CO2 concentrations are at the highest recorded level for that 100,000 years. Curtailing CO2 and greenhouse gas levels is a good idea, but it will not prevent the naturally re-occurring cycle of global warming of which we are now experiencing. And this, obviously, is the first time humans are experiencing this cycle of climatic change. The IPCC denial of these glacial-interglacial cycles is unconscionable at best.
It has been said that the current CO2 concentration of 394 ppm is higher than ever recorded over the last 650,000 to 800,000 (depending on where you gather your Ice Core sample). This is an assumption which ignores the process of empirical data gathering. Problem is that as the atmosphere is captured in these ice core layers, from one recorded layer to the next, it does so only when it is cold enough. If the ice layer capture is melting faster than it is reforming, higher levels will not be part of the ice data record. As the global climate cools, the CO2 concentration is lowered and the ice cores can again only record the CO2 concentration at the time of their formation.
However this being said, there is no preponderance of data that shows conclusively that an increase concentration of CO2 (and greenhouse gases) is the driving force for this present or past global warming cycles. There is a study based on CO2 saturation as to its positive feedback on weather, but weather is not the issue here. We are talking permanent maintainable global climate change. And has been previously recorded, each time the Earth's global land-sea temperature was able to maintain a +12.0° Centigrade difference (or more) from the last global Ice Age, the Earth's climate slowly decreased back to the next Ice Age, despite that fact that the CO2 concentrations were at the highest recorded level.
One easy way to settle this controversy is for the IPCC representatives (i.e., AGWers climatologists) to explain and demonstrate how their model is consistent with the sudden decline in CO2 concentrations when the levels are at their highest. If the IPCC climatologists have provided a full proof analysis of the data, then it must work for all climatic conditions. Therefore what is the trigger that causes CO2 concentrations to recede when CO2 concentrations are at their highest (i.e., from one interglacial cycle to the next)?
Uh, Steve? They did account for that. You just copy-pasted information from a person who didn't want to acknowledge it.
Toasty McGrath - Perhaps you misunderstood my question, because the current IPCC documentation predicts increasing CO2 concentration relative to AGW prognosis without regard to the expected glacial-interglacial cycles. In short, the IPCC "account" of glacial-interglacial cycles is that they are insignificant; The IPCC does not believe that the CO2 concentration will decline on there own and knows of no natural trigger for this event.
But I'll use your information of this "account" if you like - Please provide a link to the appropriate section for this information on the IPCC answer to the trigger for the decline in CO2 concentration when CO2 ppm was at its highest for past climatic change events.
Remember that the regarded fatal prognosis for such global warming, whether in past climatic global warmings or this current one, is that the increased temperatures are devasting to ocean and plant life. And in a plant depleted environment, there are not enough CO2 scrubbers (i.e. photosynthesis) to aid in reducing the CO2 concentration, so CO2 should continue to increase in either the past climatic global warmings or this current one. However, this is contrary to recorded atmospheric data during these cycles.
I'm sorry dude, but the data just doesn't fit your hypothesis. Throw as many copy-pasted sciencey words around as you like, but when it comes to the real experts, they all line up squarely on the side of the IPCC. That's because they'd actually looked at the data, and this is the conclusion they've arrived at as a result.
OK 'dude', guess you can't answer the question. However consider yourself in good company (the company of your peers), because the experts can not answer this question either. So until there is a reasonable answer from the IPCC on this subject, their proposed climate model does not consider all the data and will continue to be a focus of contention.
Screw these other countries, we produce less than 2% of the problem, our oil sands are getting cleaner and cleaner all the time. India is the 3rd largest polluter in the world and they are getting worse as we are getting better. The liberals signed Kyoto and did nothing about it, now they are whining because the conservatives have the balls to say enough is enough. In 2008 Canada was the 11th cleanest country in the world to live in while India was 104th. This whole process is just an excuse for the poorer countries to scam more money from the developed countries (as an aside Chine is the one of the biggest economies in the world right now). I don't hear anyone chirping at Australia who is the world’s dirtiest country. I am sick and tired of Canada being slammed when in reality we are one of the cleanest countries in the world
We = Canada? I am taking this assumption.
Because the USA is the second largest emitter of CO2 behind China.
"...Canada has long complained that the agreement is unworkable because it excludes many significant emitters from binding action."
Seems kind of petty to leave just because others are not following the protocols. Doesn't it matter to them that they can make a difference?
If it would cost them nothing to stay, your point might make sense. However, between the cost of compliance or the penalty for non compliance, it makes sense for them to get out. The difference Canada would make by adhering to the protocols is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the damage done by the US, China, India, etc.
Poor liberals. For years, we have been lectured by them to be more like Canada and France. Well, Canada is backing out of Kyoto and wants to sell us more oil via the Keystone pipeline. And France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. LOL
I have no idea what your point here is. I thought conservatives advocated cheap electricity (fossil fuels) whereas nuclear power is much more expensive.
Ruken,
You are badly misinformed. Nuclear power is by far the cheapest way to generate electricity. The greenies are completely against it and that is why we haven't built a nuclear plant in thirty years. Most of our electricity is currently generated by coal-fired power plants, something the greenies are completely against as well. Obama has threatened the power industry with more regulations to "bankrupt them" in his words if they dare to build another coal-fired plant. Hey, let's be like the French. After all, they are never wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1,_2011_DOE_report.gif
I'm not the one misinformed, at least according to that DOE report.
If you want cheap electricity, encourage the US government to go balls-to-the-wall to finish off nuclear fusion.
Hmmm, based on your link, nuclear power is the cheapest. It is comparable to natural gas and cheaper than coal. Cost per megawatt-hr:
Look under "conventional coal".
Personally, I'd be for nuclear over any fossil fuel. But not if Conoco-Philips has anything to say about it.
The background article for that chart is poorly sourced and not sourced for some of the key parameters. Also, making assumptions like a 20-40 years life cycle for a power plant (which they did) is obviously ridiculous for a nuclear plant.
Nuclear power would be even less expensive if we did not have an entire government bureaucracy in place whose sole raison d'etre seems to be making their operation very expensive if not impossible. We should do now what we did not do the past 30 years - build new and upgrade existing nuclear plants.
Dr Larry,
You need to research the average life of a operational nuclear power plant...
They are certified for 30+years, then they can be re-certified for 15 to 20+additional years. After this they have to have their core and pressure container replaced, which usually means they are decommissioned...
A little thing called metal fatigue and max number of thermal/pressure cycles is what limits their service life... see - http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/second-life-the-questionable-safety-of-life-extensions-russian-nuclear-power-plan
I am not surprised by the comments made so far, and actually not very disappointed by the ignorance and arrogance. This simply confirms the prediction that the fall of US is inevitable.
Yes, China is still a poor country. The average college graduates in China earn about 30000rmb a year, even in Beijing and Shanghia, that's less than $5000. Any one of the spoiled american commenters here ever tried to live on that? Ah, why US still has debts and China holds that debt? That is because everyone of american spoiled kids (I don't just mean kids) overspends beyond her/his means.
Only in US, man-made global climate change and natural selection are still disputed, simply because of the right-wingers' fight to keep the so-called "balanced view". The result is not a balanced view, but a highly skewed view. The right-wingers took the views by less than 1 percent of the scientists (yes, scientists do disagree on many things and that's how science evolves and eventually gets things right), and used the propaganda machine to blow it up. Now the 1% looks like a 50% view, doesn't it?
Poor americans made blind by the fake democracy they held so dear to their heart still think the world is flat.
The problem with China is also how fast they are industrializing. Fossil fuel plants are so much easier, faster, and cheaper to build than nuclear. This is why China's power plants pollute so much.
Ignorance and arrogance? Your post is full of it. Climate change is, and always has been, a fact of nature. We have been through much colder and much hotter cycles over the millenia.
The effect of man on these cycles is so insignificant that it really is NOT measurable. Looking at data from 100-200 years is a totally unscientific and ignorant approach to evaluate climate.
You have your percentages very, very wrong. A huge percentage of real scientists do not agree with your claim and much of the original claims of the IPCC have been debunked and shown for what they are by the exposure of their attempts to generate and manipulate "data" to agree with their pre-supposition. That is NOT science.
Many of the AGW advocates will not release their means and methods and "data" for independent scientific review - which also violates the scientific method.
Maybe you are too young, but I remember well the rabid insistence of similar pseudo-scientists about 30 years ago claiming we would be entering a mini ice age. And do you know what/who they blamed? Yep - they said it was caused by us humans. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Dr Larry, http://planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html
as a conservative I am begging you to read something and turn off hannity and glen beck
I think many people in out party have forgotten the conserve part of conservative
I agree with Dr Larry on this one. While the current weather mechanism of negative and positive feedback can explain the influence high concentration of CO2 and greenhouse gases play in global weather behavior, it is just that - a contributor of the weather phenomenon. For real climatic change, the driving force needs to explain both the cause for global warming and global cooling. As the undisputed analysis of ice core data from anywhere on Earth demonstrates, global cooling toward the next Ice Age (per the natural glacial-interglacial cycle) appers to occur like clockwork despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations were at their highest values.
It is interesting that the IPCC consensus recommendation was to prevent the increase of temperature from rising greater than 2.0°C (for the global land and sea temperature) from today's benchmark. Just 4 years ago, based on the AGW model, the expectation is for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 3.0°C to 4.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). Since the current data in not in their favor, this year they scaled back their doomsday prediction for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 1.5°C to 2.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). In order to keep the fear in place, they also provided a fatal prognosis for the Earth at this new 2.0°C prediction.
Based on past evidence, no matter what we do, global warming will continue until it peaks and then it will begin it gradual decline toward the next Ice Age. During all the major climate changes in the past, the concentration of CO2 had little influence on the overall global climate condition. Per this previously recorded ice core data, it takes 80,000 to 90,000 years to dip into a global Ice Age climatic condition - but only 10,000 to 20,000 to spike up to a global warming climatic condition. And just like clockwork, each time the Earth's global land-sea temperature was able to maintain a +12.0° Centigrade difference (or more) from the last global Ice Age, the Earth's global climate condition slowly decreased back to the next Ice Age, despite that fact that the CO2 concentrations are at the highest recorded level for that 100,000 years. Curtailing CO2 and greenhouse gas levels is a good idea, but it will not prevent the naturally re-occurring cycle of global warming of which we are now experiencing. And this, obviously, is the first time humans are experiencing this cycle of climatic change. The IPCC denial of these glacial-interglacial cycles as a major factor in climatic change is unconscionable at best.
Therefore the unanswered question remains, "Per the AGW model, what is the expect trigger that has caused and will cause CO2 concentrations to recede when CO2 concentrations are at their highest (i.e., from any number of recorded of ice cores around the Earth) ?" For whatever the answer, this answer would be the real driving force of climatic change.
Mr , who died and made you so wise? Nobody, that's who. Please, please move to another country (how about South Africa) and give up your American citizenship you hate so much. Yes, South Africa would be perfect. And you would finally be happy. We all certainly want you to be happy. signed, a Tea Party Patriot, and darned happy. I have to get off the Comment line now and order some of rush Limbaugh's tea (Two if by Tea). Were you ever in the service? Armed Service, that is. Or were you just an OWS groupee?
@Firewater: The problem is that many Americans think they are smarter than those scientists with PHDs.
Many are. BTW, many of those, like me, that disagree with AGW have PhD's as well.
The POLITICAL Science from the AGW/global warming scam is coming back and biting them on the A$$.
The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...
1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs'.
2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010 essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)
3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO2, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.
5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived by science and the scientist involved.'
For a book containing the hundreds of other prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html
The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...
Energy conservation and minimal environmental impact, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...
Should we really care whether it is warming or ice-age, or just more violent storms? As a general rule of thumb: unless we work for it, what we do will make it work against us. So are we expecting burning all the fuel on this scale will make the environment better? I don't think so. No matter what the end result is, nature will come back and bite us.