Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[westwall]

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. Why? Because agriculture didn't exist during the ice age. And it wasn't because we tried and failed. What is undeniable is that most of the Sahara desert was green while much of Europe was buried in ice.

Yes we do. Read the Domesday book sometime. It was a tax record so had to be very accurate. England produced as much wine as France did. Something it STILL can't do today. The Romans also reported favorably of their warm period as did the Chinese. You need to read some history there boy. You limit yourself to your highly biased writings and there's a whole world out there you know nothing about.

Below is one of MANY sources.....

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

You are confused, dude. The last ice age ended 11,800 years ago.

No, it's you who are confused here. Since the last ice age how many warming and cooling trends have there been?

 

[orogenicman]

Yes we do. Read the Domesday book sometime. It was a tax record so had to be very accurate. England produced as much wine as France did. Something it STILL can't do today. The Romans also reported favorably of their warm period as did the Chinese. You need to read some history there boy. You limit yourself to your highly biased writings and there's a whole world out there you know nothing about.

Below is one of MANY sources.....

"10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than in the period preceding and the period following it. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is slightly warmer than for most of the 20th century. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art."


Middle Ages - Environmental history timeline

You are confused, dude. The last ice age ended 11,800 years ago.

No, it's you who are confused here. Since the last ice age how many warming and cooling trends have there been?

If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison. Capiche? Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, and there were probably 10,000 people in all of the British Isles at the time. What a thriving industry that was.

Wow, you are truly ignorant of history.

"At the time of the Domesday Book (1086) England probably had a population of about 2 million. (Much less than in Roman times). However the population grew rapidly. It may have reached about 5 or 6 million by the end of the 13th century."

A History of the Population of England

The Domesday Book Online - Home

Wow, you are STILL confused, dude. The last ice age still ended 11,800 years ago.

Actually, the end of the last ice age occurred around 14,000 to 15,000 YBP

 

[orogenicman]

What caused the end of the ice age? ? Niels Bohr Institute - University of Copenhagen

The last cold ripple ended 11,711 years ago...

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

 

[Abraham3]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

You don't like the way I phrased it? Too bad, I had been playing a rather violent video game with my son and it seemed like an apt description at the time.

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.

Perhaps I should have called it a "You,sir, are no Jack Kennedy" moment.

That seems even less apropos.

Flac is an educated and informed person with reasoned and we'll thought out positions on many subjects.

But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.

Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

 

[Abraham3]

Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

I'm curious how you can characterize a view held by the vast majority of scientists as "anti-science".

And can you identify a period of time in which utilities did NOT ask for rate hikes? Have they ever asked to lower their rates? It is a fact that making changes will cost money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are confused, dude. The last ice age ended 11,800 years ago.

No, it's you who are confused here. Since the last ice age how many warming and cooling trends have there been?

If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison. Capiche? Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

I'm curious how you can characterize a view held by the vast majority of scientists as "anti-science".

And can you identify a period of time in which utilities did NOT ask for rate hikes? Have they ever asked to lower their rates? It is a fact that making changes will cost money. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

The vast majority of scientists think more expensive energy is a good idea?

 

[westwall]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

What real environmental protection would that be? Where would you like to spend money?

Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there. Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth. Prevent rainforest destruction. Save the whales. Develop a asteroid protection system. Develop a viable alternative energy system.

That will do for now....

Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts. Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES. Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US. I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers. But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities. The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia. There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption. This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales. I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done. If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation. Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system. Uh-huh. We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control. There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system". I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions. What do you actually mean with this point? Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.

Ask orogenicman, if he's a true geologist he'll know.

 

[orogenicman]

No, it's you who are confused here. Since the last ice age how many warming and cooling trends have there been?

If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison. Capiche? Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?

In Europe and the northern part of North American, you are right. Elsewhere, it had little effect on agriculture production.

 

[westwall]

It does seem wonderfully ironic that in all Flac's hysteria, he has not noticed that the countries that have made the greatest advances in producing massive amounts of electricity from renewables are those countries most committed to combating climate change.

It is the Luddite USA that is left in the dust with with Tidal, with Osmotic, with Solar Thermal and even with Breeder Reactors.

The US is so fixated on fracking that they are a good 10 years behind Germany, Korea, Spain and the UK when it comes to real 21st century solutions.

Flacs hysteria? You guys bring new meaning to the word hysteria!

 

[westwall]

If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison. Capiche? Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?

In Europe and the northern part of North American, you are right. Elsewhere, it had little effect on agriculture production.

Really? Why? Show your evidence to support your assertion...

 

[orogenicman]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there. Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth. Prevent rainforest destruction. Save the whales. Develop a asteroid protection system. Develop a viable alternative energy system.

That will do for now....

Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts. Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES. Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US. I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers. But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities. The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia. There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption. This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales. I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done. If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation. Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system. Uh-huh. We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control. There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system". I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions. What do you actually mean with this point? Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.

Ask orogenicman, if he's a true geologist he'll know.

Abandoned wells. By the way, the EPA has spent millions doing exactly that, when it is the petroleum companies that should be doing it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you go back to post #701 (the post I responded to), note that he said:

"Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during ice ages."

There was no agriculture during the ice ages because it hadn't been invented yet, so it is not a fair comparison. Capiche? Jeez, even a child should be able to understand this.

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?

In Europe and the northern part of North American, you are right. Elsewhere, it had little effect on agriculture production.

It's true, warmer is better than colder.

 

[orogenicman]

Agriculture has done better during climactic optimums than during cold spells like the Little Ice Age.

Better now?

In Europe and the northern part of North American, you are right. Elsewhere, it had little effect on agriculture production.

It's true, warmer is better than colder.

Until it becomes too warm, and too dry. Next.

 

[PMZ]

But enough about Al Gore.

Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?

I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

 

[PMZ]

Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?

I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

It's true, I can't claim to have made 10s of millions by spreading bad science.

Who said anything about claims to fame? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the opposite has occured.

Most of the measures designed to curb emissions also benefit the environment in other ways.

Doing away with coal, making more efficient engines and improving industrial and engine efficiency are having a huge impact on air quality, aren't they?

We are making huge savings on heating and electricity bills as people and companies work more with insulation, timer switches on lights, better light bulbs....a thousand minor changes that benefit everyone.

I totally agree that we need to save the rainforest (and I've seen this destruction first hand in the Amazon) but climate change contributes to doing so by raising awareness and by promoting better environmental practices.

You can complain about leaking nuclear plants, but climate change is inspiring technologies like Breeder Reactors, Solar Thermal and Tidal that provide the next generation of electricity supply.

Even recycling goes hand-in-hand with reducing emissions, not counter to it.

I really have no idea what you are complaining about here - even if we found out tomorrow that climate change was not linked to CO2, all of the changes and developments made would be worth it, I would think.

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility