The Ice Age of the 1970s

Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on global warming sometimes seen in this group.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on global warming sometimes seen in this group.

It the warmingistas thought that a crisis was/is brewing they would be acting much differently WRT their own carbon footprints. But they aren't.

On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 17:33:47 UTC+2, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on global warming sometimes seen in this group.

It the warmingistas thought that a crisis was/is brewing they would be acting much differently WRT their own carbon footprints. But they aren't.

I had 23 down-filled jackets at the last count.
What more do you want?

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:55:33 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 17:33:47 UTC+2, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on global warming sometimes seen in this group.

It the warmingistas thought that a crisis was/is brewing they would be acting much differently WRT their own carbon footprints. But they aren't.

I had 23 down-filled jackets at the last count.
What more do you want?

Such jackets have a CO2 footprint. One jacket should be sufficient.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:54:47 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on global
warming sometimes seen in this group.

John Savard

It also contains some baloney:

"Barrett starts by dismissing a rapid warming trend on the grounds that the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was on track to take 340 years to
double. (We will actually hit that doubling point well before the end of
this century if we don’t cut emissions.)"

As the upward trend in CO2 concentration is an increase of about 2 ppm/year
on a present concentration of 400 ppm:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Thus over the next 80 years we would expect an increase of 160 ppm, not
really a doubling but something to be concerned about. The increase for
the last year, however, has been an increase of 3.7 ppm/year, so if that
trend continued (and it would be unscientific to claim that it will), that
still wouldn't be a doubling. This is an example of the dishonesty that
seems to be rampant in the AGW advocates crowd.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 7:25:29 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Such jackets have a CO2 footprint. One jacket should be sufficient.

Sometimes they require dry cleaning, and so two is not excessive.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 8:33:09 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

It also contains some baloney:

"Barrett starts by dismissing a rapid warming trend on the grounds that the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was on track to take 340 years to
double. (We will actually hit that doubling point well before the end of
this century if we don’t cut emissions.)"

As the upward trend in CO2 concentration is an increase of about 2 ppm/year
on a present concentration of 400 ppm:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Thus over the next 80 years we would expect an increase of 160 ppm, not
really a doubling but something to be concerned about. The increase for
the last year, however, has been an increase of 3.7 ppm/year, so if that
trend continued (and it would be unscientific to claim that it will), that
still wouldn't be a doubling. This is an example of the dishonesty that
seems to be rampant in the AGW advocates crowd.

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of either 2 ppm or 3.7
ppm is the response to the output of a certain amount of carbon dioxide by
human industrial activity.

While factors like the oceans dissolving atmospheric carbon dioxide will
complicate matters, basically X tons of carbon dioxide = 1 additional ppm of
atmospheric CO2 whether the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is 400 ppm
or 600 ppm.

Expecting human carbon dioxide emissions to remain constant, in the absence of
actions to control them, however, is unrealistic.

Both energy consumption per capita, and the human population, have been
increasing *on an upward exponential curve*.

Let's see now; today there are 10 billion people in the world; in the 1960s,
there were 3 billion people in the world. How many people will there be in the
world by the year 2999 if that trend continues without any change?

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:59:38 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Expecting human carbon dioxide emissions to remain constant, in the absence
of actions to control them, however, is unrealistic.

Indeed. The warmingistas are quite the little hypocrites, aren't they?




Both energy consumption per capita, and the human population, have been
increasing *on an upward exponential curve*.

Actually, oil and energy consumption per capita has been fairly stable since its big decline in the '70s. CO2 per capita has been on a long downward trend.

You are probably getting the world mixed up with China.


Let's see now; today there are 10 billion people in the world;

There are "only" 7.3 billion people in the World, with only a billion of them owning bicycles.

in the 1960s,
there were 3 billion people in the world. How many people will there be in the
world by the year 2999 if that trend continues without any change?

What trend, exactly?

wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:55:33 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 17:33:47 UTC+2, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on
global warming sometimes seen in this group.

It the warmingistas thought that a crisis was/is brewing they would be
acting much differently WRT their own carbon footprints. But they aren't.

I had 23 down-filled jackets at the last count.
What more do you want?

Such jackets have a CO2 footprint. One jacket should be sufficient.


The footprint of imaginary jackets is fairly small.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 11:55:33 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 June 2016 17:33:47 UTC+2, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this article:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...oming-ice-age/

which provides some more facts as input to the ongoing debate on
global warming sometimes seen in this group.

It the warmingistas thought that a crisis was/is brewing they would be
acting much differently WRT their own carbon footprints. But they aren't.

I had 23 down-filled jackets at the last count.
What more do you want?

Such jackets have a CO2 footprint. One jacket should be sufficient.


The footprint of imaginary jackets is fairly small.

The footprint of real jackets is fairly large. critter probably owns more than a few.