This is hilarious - and no loss on the irony of it all. We see record lows all over the place, and yes, global warming is even responsible for that. Amazing.

Irony alert: The unusually chilly global-warming summit
Cancun is hosting the U.N. conference on man-made climate change — amid record cold temperatures
http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit
As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun's weather the latest example of the "Gore Effect" — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, "it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival," jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer....

And then there's this... yes, as the CO2 rises plants actually grow larger and healthier, which has an inverse effect on CO2 as well as temperature.

CO2-induced Vegetation Growth Slows Global Warming
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/12/08/co2-induced-vegetation-growth-slows-global-warming/#more-460
...A new study has identified a negative feedback between carbon dioxide-enhanced vegetative growth and global warming—the denser that vegetation becomes, the greater the cooling influence it has on any global temperature rise. The enhanced vegetation doesn’t offset all of the projected warming, but a sizeable chunk of it—13% globally, 20% over land areas, and more than 50% over the eastern United States. And this negative feedback is not included in current climate models.

A research team of scientists from NOAA, NASA, and the University of Maryland, led by Lahouari Bounoua set out to study how changing vegetation characteristics induced both directly by enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (recall that CO2 is a plant fertilizer) as well as by climate changes that are favorable for plant growth (increased temperature and/or precipitation) may feedback on the projected climate changes. The authors note that there has been some previous work on this topic, but that their current work (just published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters) uses a different modeling approach and includes plant responses not included in earlier studies.

The Bounoua team coupled a plant vegetation model to a climate model that allowed plant characteristics to change and in turn feedback on the climate system. The model was run for a case of doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration (700ppm).

The biggest changes to the plants were an increase in water use efficiency and an increase in the Leaf Area Index (LAI) (the LAI is the total area of all the upper surface of all the leaves on a tree divided by the area on the ground covered by that tree—the more and larger the leaves, the greater the LAI ). ... the LAI increased by more than 50% at each of three different scales/regions—all global land areas, U.S.A., and the eastern United States. The increased LAI indicates overall denser, more vigorous, vegetation. ...

Oops.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

RV, you are a dummy.
Global warming doesn't mean the whole Earth is getting warmer. It means certain parts are warming and other parts have the opposite effect happening. Some areas haven't been affected at all yet and some have rapidly changing effects.

You need to put the term "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" out of your head and think about what it should have been called in the first place, "Pollution".

That's what all this boils down to. Do you want clean air or polluted air?
Do you want an atmosphere or can you do without it?
Do you want rising sea temperatures and the effects that accompany that or not?

CO2 not equal Pollution

Period.

You are the only one being a dummy here if you believe CO2 is anything different.

EDIT: My thoughts are pretty clear from all the past articles I have posted. This one is just indicative of the constantly changing information that is not being included in the discussion - ie CO2 is a plant food, clouds may not be positive feedbacks, but actually the condition (lack of clouds) that is causing the warming, etc. For years the global warming (see climate change now) alarmists have used every hot weather event to fortell doom on a global scale. Now that folks are equally highlighting the cold effects suddenly the truth is more complex. Yeah, whatever. They have proven now that global average temperatures have not changed significantly in the last 10-15 years.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 12:04PM by Registered Voter.

Is CO2 causing the ozone damage? Yes. Therefore it can be considered a pollutant.
Also, it is NOT just about CO2 emissions. Its about all the other stuff that combines with CO2 and anything that creates smog or pollution.

RV, are you against pollution in general or are you okay with it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 12:08PM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is CO2 causing the ozone damage? Yes. Therefore it
> can be considered a pollutant.
> Also, it is NOT just about CO2 emissions. Its
> about all the other stuff that combines with CO2
> and anything that creates smog or pollution.
>
> RV, are you against pollution in general or are
> you okay with it?

Read much?

CO2 is not a pollutant - it has very little to do with any form of ozone damage - if anything at all. Pollution needs to be managed - real pollution. This BS with CO2 (about what - .03% of the atmosphere) is just that. Follow the money, and you will find the true motivations behind CO2 issues - and it isn't the Oil companies.

Here, this should enlighten you lol...

Ozone impact on plants fuels CO2, study finds
It blocks them from absorbing carbon dioxide, researchers say
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19958894/ns/us_news-environment/
...The study's findings also suggest that ozone, which is a greenhouse gas itself, may contribute more to global warming through its effects on the plant carbon sink than through any absorption and re-radiation of Earth's heat itself.

OOPS.

And just to complete the picture:

Isoprene vs. Ozone in a CO2-Enriched and Warmer Europe
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N31/B2.php
...What it means
Because ozone "is toxic for humans, animals, and plants even at relatively low concentrations," according to Arneth et al., their findings should be reassuring to people living in Europe -- and elsewhere -- for it would appear that a CO2-enriched and warmer world will provide a doubly beneficial future for them, with greater forest productivity and less associated ozone pollution.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV, you are a dummy.
> Global warming doesn't mean the whole Earth is
> getting warmer. It means certain parts are warming
> and other parts have the opposite effect
> happening. Some areas haven't been affected at all
> yet and some have rapidly changing effects.
>
> You need to put the term "Global Warming" and
> "Climate Change" out of your head and think about
> what it should have been called in the first
> place, "Pollution".
>
> That's what all this boils down to. Do you want
> clean air or polluted air?
> Do you want an atmosphere or can you do without
> it?
> Do you want rising sea temperatures and the
> effects that accompany that or not?


Agreed.

What some people do not understand is there is a difference between the elements one is experiencing right here, right now, which is called "weather" and what is being experienced globally, which is called "climate". 95% of all climate scientists agree climate change is happening, but you have a few numbskulls who say "it is cold outside therefore it is all bunk".

Ok so, so using your logic, since it is cold outside, globally warming does not exist. So when it hits 60 degrees in Manhattan in mid February, will you agree it is happening?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2010 12:44PM by Radiophile.

I am not one of those people R-pile. I look at the entire picture - and if you look, England right now is experiencing their worst cold snap in almost 100yrs. So don't look for 2010 to be the warmest on record, or any kind of trend to higher temps.

It is easy to make it look like global temperatures are warmer - especially when you cut down on the monitoring stations that are in the coldest areas. If you reduce the cold sites from your analysis, your average temps rise. Easy manipulation of the record. The satellites measuring current atmospheric temps are not showing appreciable warming - and even then they are not showing warming that is anywhere in line with predicted warming from the rising CO2 concentrations. So, at this point it is bunk.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Regis,
What video games do you play?

Signatures are for fags

I'm in favor of pollution.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is CO2 causing the ozone damage? Yes. Therefore it
> can be considered a pollutant.
> Also, it is NOT just about CO2 emissions. Its
> about all the other stuff that combines with CO2
> and anything that creates smog or pollution.
>
> RV, are you against pollution in general or are
> you okay with it?


Pollution doesn't equal AGW. Should we clean-up pollution? Certainly. We should not, however, be focusing on an as of yet ill-proven theory.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RV, you are a dummy.
> > Global warming doesn't mean the whole Earth is
> > getting warmer. It means certain parts are
> warming
> > and other parts have the opposite effect
> > happening. Some areas haven't been affected at
> all
> > yet and some have rapidly changing effects.
> >
> > You need to put the term "Global Warming" and
> > "Climate Change" out of your head and think
> about
> > what it should have been called in the first
> > place, "Pollution".
> >
> > That's what all this boils down to. Do you want
> > clean air or polluted air?
> > Do you want an atmosphere or can you do without
> > it?
> > Do you want rising sea temperatures and the
> > effects that accompany that or not?
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> What some people do not understand is there is a
> difference between the elements one is
> experiencing right here, right now, which is
> called "weather" and what is being experienced
> globally, which is called "climate". 95% of all
> climate scientists agree climate change is
> happening, but you have a few numbskulls who say
> "it is cold outside therefore it is all bunk".
>
> Ok so, so using your logic, since it is cold
> outside, globally warming does not exist. So when
> it hits 60 degrees in Manhattan in mid February,
> will you agree it is happening?


Actually, 100% of climate scientists believe in "Climate Change", because it's a verifiable fact that the Earth's climate varies over time. Man-caused global warming is an entirely different issue, and the only scientists who I see touting it as fact are the attention whores.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

i thought this thread was about a 54 year old woman in cancun. that would be a major WTF.


then i saw who started this thread and got very disappointed.

now im clipping my toenails.

welcome back RV

Just clipped mine also.

Say bloody b, were you the one who was banging on my window while wildly
kicking up your feet and flaping your arms like a chicken ?

*Peeping Tom* Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just clipped mine also.
>
> Say bloody b, were you the one who was banging on
> my window while wildly
> kicking up your feet and flaping your arms like a
> chicken ?


heavens no

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV, you are a dummy.
> Global warming doesn't mean the whole Earth is
> getting warmer. It means certain parts are warming
> and other parts have the opposite effect
> happening. Some areas haven't been affected at all
> yet and some have rapidly changing effects.
>
> You need to put the term "Global Warming" and
> "Climate Change" out of your head and think about
> what it should have been called in the first
> place, "Pollution".
>
> That's what all this boils down to. Do you want
> clean air or polluted air?
> Do you want an atmosphere or can you do without
> it?
> Do you want rising sea temperatures and the
> effects that accompany that or not?

Co2 is not a pollutant. And you are an absolute idiot who should not be given the time of fucking day if you think it is.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Co2 is not a pollutant. And you are an absolute
> idiot who should not be given the time of fucking
> day if you think it is.


Well, if it turns out that co2 is damaging the ozone, it's a pollutant. There are lots of elements, that in small doses are helpful and in large doses are dangerous and you are an absolute idiot who should not be given the time of day if you think they aren't.

CO2 is what you exhale every time you and every other animal breath. I guess breathing is pollution.

So the quicker we kill off those fucking manatees, whales, and other endangered animals the quicker we put a stop to those sources of pollution.

But since I don't want to go extinct, I'm in favor of pollution.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CO2 is what you exhale every time you and every
> other animal breath. I guess breathing is
> pollution.
>
> So the quicker we kill off those fucking manatees,
> whales, and other endangered animals the quicker
> we put a stop to those sources of pollution.
>
> But since I don't want to go extinct, I'm in favor
> of pollution.


What happens if you inhale the same co2 you just exhaled? Not good.
Now think of all the co2 in the air that was around 100 years ago and how much will be in the air 100 years from now at the current rate.
It's like everything. We need to think of ways around it, like we've always done.
I really don't see why people have a problem with keeping the Earth habitable now and for future generations.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What happens if you inhale the same co2 you just
> exhaled? Not good.
> Now think of all the co2 in the air that was
> around 100 years ago and how much will be in the
> air 100 years from now at the current rate.
> It's like everything. We need to think of ways
> around it, like we've always done.
> I really don't see why people have a problem with
> keeping the Earth habitable now and for future
> generations.


You're right, I want the Earth to become inhabitable. I must be shouted down or defeated like an evil comic book villain.