Will the United States sign on to Kyoto's successor?

[Jacobtm]

The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. This November, the UN Climate Change committee is set to draw up another treaty to cover the 2012-2016 time-frame. When the time comes, will the United States sign on to mandatory, legally enforceable, carbon-cuts?

[Snowguy716]

It will be interesting to see if we do.

I think the global warming crowd will suffer serious setbacks in the next several years as the planet cools due mostly to natural cycles.

There have been studies that find that global climate changes with the varying lengths of solar sunspot cycles.

The shorter the time between solar maximums and minimums, the hotter the planet gets.  The longer the time, the colder the planet.

This is because the longer sunspot cycles tend to be weaker, so the period of very low solar activity is much longer than during short cycles.

The length of the solar cycles shortened significantly from the late 1950s through the mid 1990s.

The period between the solar minimum of solar cycle 21 and cycle 22 (roughly 1987 and 1996) was an unusually short 9 years (compared to an average of 11).

The minimum likely has not been reached yet for this solar cycle as December was another unusually quiet month, putting the likely minimum in late 2008 or early 2009, making this cycle length nearly 13 years, or the longest since the mid-19th century when the planet experienced rapid cooling during what was called the "Dalton minimum"

Some people estimate a cooling of the planet over the next 30 years of anywhere between 0.1 to over 1˚C which would put us back where we were in the early 1900s.

The weakening of the sun along with various natural cycles all lining up into their colder phases is a perfect storm for global cooling. 

It will truly put the Greenhouse theory to the test.

[Snowguy716]

Here is a graphic of the solar cycle lengths.  Notice the period of unusually short cycles coincides with warming global temperatures.

The current cycle is a conservative estimate based on a the current cycle having ended in July 2008.. but as I said before, another very quiet month may push the minimum back to late 2008 or early this year.

[Jacobtm]

Snowguy, the idea that the world is about to cool undoubtedly has some merit, but your justification is junk science of the first order.

The real cause for impending global cooling is much simpler:



As we all know, mercifully, global piracy is again on the rise. Hopefully that'll shore up those glaciers for some time to come.

[Snowguy716]

Quite obviously

2008 was quite exceptional from the past couple decades, though.  Alaska's glaciers saw a positive mass balance for the first time since records first began (in the 1940s). 

We also experienced our 5th coldest year since 1930 after 9 straight years of top 10 warm years.

It's almost as if our climate just snapped back to "normal"... 12 of the past 13 months have been below normal, with February-May being exceptionally cold.

We had 50" of snow in April, compared to an average of 5"... beating the old record of 19" set in 1950.

It was hte first time in decades that we did not reach 90˚F.

The ice didn't go off the lakes in time for fishing opener in May... that has happened only 3 times since 1950... in 1950 and 1996.

It's was a weird year.  Especially considering the "norm" of warmth that we were getting used to.

[Senator Ben]

I'd be very surprised if we didn't.  Obama will certainly sign it, and I don't see any Republican opposing it and winning.

[dialectical fetishist]

Please don't sign.

[dead0man]

Is it going to be as "wrong" as the first one?

[MODU]

With Obama in the White House and a Democratic Congress?  The odds are likely that it will be signed.  However, they will be fools to do so.

[Jacobtm]

Of course Snowguy, one of the things predicted by Global Warming reports isn't uniform warming, but a wider variation in global temperatures along with a higher average.

[True Federalist]

It might sign it, but getting the Senate to ratify it will be tough, and probably impossible.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I would be very surprised if the Obama Administration doesn't sign such an agreement, I mean Obama has stated frequently throughout the campaign that if such an agreement were to arise during his term that would support it wholeheartedly. Although I am pessimistic about Obama's first term as President, Climate Change is not an issue which I expect him to pander to the right on.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Of course Snowguy, one of the things predicted by Global Warming reports isn't uniform warming, but a wider variation in global temperatures along with a higher average.

     Indeed. That's why global warming is a futile debate to have; the left doesn't grasp what's specifically going on & the right doesn't grasp the actual definition of the term.

[dead0man]

Of course Snowguy, one of the things predicted by Global Warming reports isn't uniform warming, but a wider variation in global temperatures along with a higher average.

     Indeed. That's why global warming is a futile debate to have; the left doesn't grasp what's specifically going on & the right doesn't grasp the actual definition of the term.

Exactly my problem with the issue.  Snowguy is the only person here that seems to know what's going on on this subject.  It's a debate science should be having, not the general public and CERTAINLY not politco's from various countries, all with their own wants, needs and grudges.

[Snowguy716]

I'm all for the debate.  The people that say the debate is over either have an agenda or they're intellectually lazy... or they're just afraid that if they acknowledge there's still debate that somehow Inhofe wins... which is not true.  Inhofe will look like an idiot, debate or no debate.

Of course there won't be uniform warming on the planet.  But the climate models are way overly sensitive to greenhouse gases in their predictions while paying absolutely no attention to natural variables.

The difference here is that I will admit I could be entirely wrong, and I'm not going to lord it over you if I'm right.  I just want to understand the way the climate works... not push my agenda (and I do have one).

[dead0man]

Aye.  I shouldn't have said nobody should be debating this other than science, it's fine, fun and informative for us to engage in the debate.  At the end of the day though, science has to win, not Al Gore or other politicos, not individual scientists and certainly none of us jackasses around the world wide watercooler.