quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Until the people who are telling me that the world is heading for disaster soon unless we do something now, began to change their lifestyle, I will never take them seriously.  I wonder what amount of greenhouse gases were expelled with this climate meeting in Copenhagen?

Well, how would you have liked them to get there? Canoes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45
If the planet were warming, the Midwest would not be threatened with a mini ice age as they are now.

Also when you conduct research into global warming, it doesn't help to study only 5% of glaciers that might be melting and ignore the other 95% that are unchanged or growing in size.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45
If the planet were warming, the Midwest would not be threatened with a mini ice age as they are now.

Also when you conduct research into global warming, it doesn't help to study only 5% of glaciers that might be melting and ignore the other 95% that are unchanged or growing in size.

On the first point, local weather is not the same as climate.  One hallmark of global warming is increased extreme weather.  And it's not all that cold; back when I was a kid we'd have several cold snaps when it would get down to -20F (northwestern Ohio).  I haven't seen that in decades.

On the second part, 93% of glaciers are in retreat:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
On the first point, local weather is not the same as climate.  One hallmark of global warming is increased extreme weather.  And it's not all that cold; back when I was a kid we'd have several cold snaps when it would get down to -20F (northwestern Ohio).  I haven't seen that in decades.

On the second part, 93% of glaciers are in retreat:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Thorn, the last year I was in New Hampshire it was below zero for 21 days in Jan of 2003 and on a few of those days it reached minus 28 to minus 32 where I lived in Strafford!
And as for the Antarctic the ice cap there is getting *thicker* thus pushing off the thinner ice on the edges due to the tremendous pressure.
All these scams always, always, always, involve *TAXPAYER DOLLARS* don't they?
Remember that "KYOTO" scam? The Moonbats are fond of saying that "Bush" shut it down for whatever reason. But, it failed in the U.S. Senate by 99-0!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



If we were having unusually warm weather I'm sure the alarmists wouldn't be at all shy about shouting "ITS GLOBAL WARMING" from every roof top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
On the first point, local weather is not the same as climate.  One hallmark of global warming is increased extreme weather.  And it's not all that cold; back when I was a kid we'd have several cold snaps when it would get down to -20F (northwestern Ohio).  I haven't seen that in decades.

On the second part, 93% of glaciers are in retreat:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Thorn, the last year I was in New Hampshire it was below zero for 21 days in Jan of 2003 and on a few of those days it reached minus 28 to minus 32 where I lived in Strafford!
And as for the Antarctic the ice cap there is getting *thicker* thus pushing off the thinner ice on the edges due to the tremendous pressure.
All these scams always, always, always, involve *TAXPAYER DOLLARS* don't they?
Remember that "KYOTO" scam? The Moonbats are fond of saying that "Bush" shut it down for whatever reason. But, it failed in the U.S. Senate by 99-0!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Isn't it a fact that water vapor has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2? I think you will find it is.

quote:


It is also true that the Medieval Warming Period took place before the Industrial Revolution without the high CO2 content, so maybe something else is at work.

quote:


Furthermore, the data from the Vostok ice core borings seem to indicate that at the very least there is no proven cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and deglaciation (warming):

According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

It appears the CO2 content did not precede the deglaciation warmings. Was there something else at work?

quote:


There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle.

quote:


But let's assume for the moment what the great majority of scientists are believed to assume: that CO2 is the culprit. Isn't it also true that the industrial revolution has accommodated almost an exponential growth of human population that Malthus warned against? More than he could have imagined? The population of our species has exceeded 6 Billion and is rapidly growing to 9 Billion. You rightly point out we are the victims of our own success and we are de-naturalizing the planet by our growth. We have turned forests into cities and we are rapidly crowding out the larger land mammals and over farming the seas. We have reduced the green carbon sink enormously, I hear.

quote:


I am not willing to admit CO2 is the problem but if it is I don't see how we can reduce industrial activity, farming, and the use of carbon based fuels with such a rapidly growing world population. I wonder if population growth is not the real issue. Maybe Malthus was right that the exponential increase in population growth will lead to conflicts over diminished resources. We just have to throw more people off the island.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I don't even care at this point whether climate change is real or not. It has zero impact on the path we should take, IMO.

which is...
1. work towards relatively clean energy independence.
2. Work towards resource independence.

Those are economic objectives, those are also requirements for a more peaceful, prosperous world.

Is Global warming man made, fudged data, or caused by external events, I don't know, and it doesn't matter, because there are other reasons to do the very same things that would reduce our polluting ways.

As in if the term Global Warming never happened upon the scene. We would still have ample reason, to develop alternate forms of energy. We would still have the need for creating a more balanced consumption cycle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Until the people who are telling me that the world is heading for disaster soon unless we do something now, began to change their lifestyle, I will never take them seriously.  I wonder what amount of greenhouse gases were expelled with this climate meeting in Copenhagen?

Well, how would you have liked them to get there? Canoes?

How about via video conference? Oops that would never work, because it would do away with all of the dinner parties...

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loki45
If the planet were warming, the Midwest would not be threatened with a mini ice age as they are now.

Also when you conduct research into global warming, it doesn't help to study only 5% of glaciers that might be melting and ignore the other 95% that are unchanged or growing in size.

On the first point, local weather is not the same as climate.  One hallmark of global warming is increased extreme weather.  And it's not all that cold; back when I was a kid we'd have several cold snaps when it would get down to -20F (northwestern Ohio).  I haven't seen that in decades.

On the second part, 93% of glaciers are in retreat:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Thorn, the last year I was in New Hampshire it was below zero for 21 days in Jan of 2003 and on a few of those days it reached minus 28 to minus 32 where I lived in Strafford!

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And as for the Antarctic the ice cap there is getting *thicker* thus pushing off the thinner ice on the edges due to the tremendous pressure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
This may be the case but the fact you are ignoring is water vapour is part of the water cycle and so eventually it turns back quite rapidly into precipitation. So such vapour is in localised areas allowing heat to escape where it isn't. CO2 is dispersed more evenly throughout the atmosphere; it will not turn into precipitation upon falling below a certain temperature threshold (as it transitions to a cooler region of the globe) thus it will stay in the air until it is absorbed and recycled via a biological system.

quote:

The medieval warming period as you call it was not warming on a global scale but had regions of the earth cooler than today. The warmer than today regions were isolated in specific areas the overall temperature was less than today. The author of said work named it ‘The medieval climate anomaly’ not the medieval warming period. The system was set up different but it still had cool regions and warm regions to enable the oceans convection currents to flow. When every part of the globe is of similar temperature there is no flow from warm to cold instead everything just stagnates. So ‘The medieval warming period’ can’t be seen as like for like with what we face today.

quote:

= Vincent:

Furthermore, the data from the Vostok ice core borings seem to indicate that at the very least there is no proven cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and deglaciation (warming):

According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

It appears the CO2 content did not precede the deglaciation warmings. Was there something else at work?

quote:

= SL4V3M4YB3:

I don't know how you read that but for me it says during times that the ice was melting historically the increase in CO2 levels were in phase or within a 1000 years showing correlation. Whereas at times when ice was forming the CO2 increases were further a drift. I assume we mostly care about when it was melting rather than forming. I’m not intimately familiar with this study so could be wrong but this is how I read what you gave.

You also missed off the top part here it is:

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle.

quote:

It's funny that when someone suggested we may be past the tipping point of controlling the situation. All the previous deniers were happy to finally accept the idea because it meant it was far too late for them to change their ways and it ‘wouldn't make a difference now anyway’. This paragraph of yours seems to be along those lines.