iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

COP 16: UN Climate Conference Begins In Cancun, Mexico With Limited Expectations

ARTHUR MAX   11/29/10 07:40 PM ET   AP

Mexico Climate Conference

CANCUN, Mexico — Frustrated at past failures, climate negotiators began a critical two-week conference Monday with a call from Mexico's president to think beyond their nations' borders and consider all humanity as they bargain over an agreement to fight global warming.

"The atmosphere is indifferent to the sovereignty of states," President Felipe Calderon said in the keynote speech opening the conference in this well-guarded coastal resort.

"It would be a tragedy if our inability to see beyond our personal interests, our group or national interests makes us fail," Calderon said in a speech to 15,000 delegates, business leaders, activists and journalists.

Three years of talks have been stymied by a sometimes acrimonious divide among industrial and developing countries about their responsibilities in fighting climate change and accepting legal limits on how much they can continue to pollute.

The Cancun conference is the first full U.N. meeting since the letdown last December of the Copenhagen summit, which brought 120 world leaders to the Danish capital in an abortive attempt to adopt an overarching accord governing emissions of made-made greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Instead, that summit ended with a three-page political statement, including an intention to raise $100 billion annually to help poor countries fight the effects of climate change and move toward green development that does not rely on fossil fuels.

Adoption of the Copenhagen Accord was blocked by a half dozen countries, raising questions about whether the U.N. negotiations were capable of reaching any decisions by the rules of consensus requiring at least tacit agreement from every country.

The U.N. process "is growing increasingly irrelevant," Papua New Guinea delegate Kevin Conrad told the conference Monday, suggesting a rule change allowing for a vote on crucial issues as a last resort if a consensus proves out of reach. The proposal met swift objections and was referred to closed-door consultations.

The conference aimed to conclude an agreement on how to raise and distribute the funding agreed in Copenhagen, including $30 billion "fast-track funds" over three years up to 2012 to help poor countries prepare for climate change. It also hoped for an agreement on saving tropical forests and transferring green technologies to developing nations.

Christiana Figueres, the top U.N. climate official, said the conference also should clarify the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 accord that required industrialized countries to reduce carbon emissions by a total 5 percent by 2012. No arrangements have been made for what happens when Kyoto's terms expire.

She said delegations should formalize commitments they submitted after Copenhagen to reduce emissions or constrain their growth. Those commitments, which fall far short of reductions scientists say are necessary, have no legal standing.

"Cancun will not solve everything," Figueres told reporters. But "the outcome needs to be pragmatic."

The talks end next week with three days of meetings among government ministers. About 25 heads of government or state also will attend, but neither President Barack Obama nor Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, two key players, will be among them.

Jonathan Pershing, the U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change, said Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will join the conference next week.

Pershing said some of the differences between the U.S. and China appear headed toward a resolution.

"My sense is we have made progress. It remains to be seen how this meeting turns out," he told reporters.

He acknowledged that Cancun can produce a balanced set of agreements only if the U.S. and China are in accord.

A plague of natural disasters this year added urgency to the talks. Floods in Pakistan, a Russian heat wave that choked Moscow in smoke from forest fires, and global temperatures at least matching the highest ever recorded provided a grim background.

"Climate change is beginning to make us pay for the fatal errors we as humanity have committed against the environment," Calderon said. Mexico this year suffered the worst drought in six decades followed by intense rain and hurricanes that killed 60 people and displaced thousands, he said.

Continued emissions of carbon and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere increases the risk of reaching "tipping points" that could bring dramatic changes, like the drying up of the Amazon rain forest or the disruption of India's vital monsoon rains, said Mario Molina, the Mexican scientist who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his studies of the ozone layer.

"Such catastrophes will have devastating effects" for perhaps billions of people, he warned.

The tools are at hand to limit the planet's warming at little cost, he said, but it could mean "astronomical costs for future generations" if nothing is done.

(This version CORRECTS spelling of US agriculture secretary's last name to Vilsack instead of Vilsak.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — Frustrated at past failures, climate negotiators began a critical two-week conference Monday with a call from Mexico's president to think beyond their nations' borders and consider ...
CANCUN, Mexico — Frustrated at past failures, climate negotiators began a critical two-week conference Monday with a call from Mexico's president to think beyond their nations' borders and consider ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 101
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
11:17 PM on 12/09/2010
Greenland's Ice Has Secret Weapon Against Melting
09 December 2010 by Michael Marshall
Journal reference: Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09618
Greenland's ice sheets are shrinking already as the climate warms, and some glaciologists fear that they could accelerate their own destruction. If they all melted, they would raise global sea levels by 6.5 metres – though even in a world 8 °C warmer than now this might take 1000 years.

The feared self-destruct device is water. As a glacier melts, water runs down to its base. In theory, this lubrication should accelerate the glacier's slide downhill and melt it sooner.

But this positive feedback is "limited", says Christian Schoof of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who has built a new model of glaciers that simulates how they respond to meltwater. He says glaciers can get rid of excess water because of the way their internal structure changes.

Schoof's model could help explain what is happening to Greenland's glaciers, says glaciologist Roderik van de Wal of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who has found no sign of the feared feedback effect. "The melt has been increasing but glacier velocities have not," he says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19842-greenlands-ice-has-secret-weapon-against-melting.html
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:18 PM on 12/01/2010
Trevor Kidd: "Hey, correct me if I am wrong Mr Hawking..."

"One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming, brought about by rising levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- Dr. Stephen Hawking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ngonyama
Major prolation, perfect mode
12:15 AM on 12/01/2010
If the CO2 is not enough to heat up the climate, surely all the hot air spewed by the deniers here will do the trick...

I do hope you get paid well for it. You should! You are certainly defending the interest of some very rich people.
03:51 PM on 11/30/2010
to all attendees - please feel free to drink the water, it is very safe
08:43 AM on 11/30/2010
Whenever we burn oil, coal, or natural gas, we take carbon out of the ground and put it into the air in the form of CO2. Any deniers want to deny that? (just checking)
03:50 PM on 11/30/2010
which is consumed by trees and returned as oxygen
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:54 PM on 11/30/2010
Much of it isn't and won't be for generations, which explains why atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era.
02:05 AM on 11/30/2010
The U.N. Conference in Cancun on climate change is still on point.
Notwithstanding the needless denial by oil and coal state politicians, the science has been established. People are leading (e.g., I'm getting solar panels on my roof this month), and countries like Germany who signed the Kyoto protocol are on target and most of their economies are on par or better off than ours. Let's join the future.
07:13 PM on 11/29/2010
i see tsunami is over here reposting his talking point. why never link to the entire interview Tsunami?
05:45 PM on 11/29/2010
Another nice link to ClimateCon

http://cfact.eu/2010/11/27/cfacts-climate-depot-on-climate-redistribution
05:16 PM on 11/29/2010
OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore"

So CLIMATE CHANGE (or whatever the favorite term is this month) is what we knew it to be all along - SOCIALISM...........................
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:00 PM on 11/29/2010
Here's another English translatio­n of what German economist Ottmar Edenhofer is saying:

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­------

Professor Edenhofer, you believe that Climate Summits such as will occur in Cancun at the end of ovember will less and less be less environmen­tal conference­s and increasing­ly be economic conference­s. Why?

Ottmar Edenhofer: We have to free ourselves from the illusion that climate issues are purely environmen­tal policy ones. For many countries for a long time it has been about concrete economic interests. They are only indirectly concerned with problems like the retreat or melting of glaciers, because climate policy extends today into many political areas. One thing has become increasing­ly clear: In the near future climate policy can redistribu­te the world's wealth.

SZ: How so?

OE: In the course of the 21st century not only will fossil fuels become rare, but the ability of the atmosphere to absorb additional greenhouse gases. We have more fossil fuel energy reserves in the ground than we can store in the atmosphere if we want to avoid dangerous climate change. That will not change because oil will run out. It will only lead to oil sands being used more and the liquidific­ation of coal will become economical­... Climate policy has to make sure that the majority of the fossil reserves remain in the ground and are not used. Exactly that will diminish the income and wealth of the owners of oil and gas.

http://rab­ett.blogsp­ot.com/201­0/11/ottma­r-repeats-­himself.ht­ml
07:10 PM on 11/29/2010
Climate change experts such as Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Cancun are calling for a to halt economic growth in the developed world over the next twenty years.  He said we should consider rationing as was seen in the 1930's to get carbon emissions down.
These people are crazy!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:07 PM on 11/29/2010
Link?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:16 PM on 11/30/2010
Denier: "Climate change experts such as Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Cancun are calling for a to halt economic growth in the developed world over the next twenty years."

Perhaps you are referring the following paper by Anderson that was just published by the Royal Society, which in fact does not say that.

"Beyond 'dangerous' climate change: emission scenarios for a new world"

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf+html
04:38 PM on 11/29/2010
In related news, Al Gore finally admitted that ethanol was a mistake. Let's see, I've been screaming about ethanol being wrong for over 6 years but nobody listens to mechanical engineers these days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
8020vision
Let's leave the world better than we found it...
06:34 PM on 11/29/2010
I put together an interesting comparison of farming corn for ethanol, versus farming wind. The charts and results are here:

http://8020vision.com/2010/09/02/farming-wind-versus-farming-corn-for-energy/

Ethanol has an Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) about 10 to 30 times less than wind power generation. Wind generates about 15 times more revenue,...

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
8020vision
Let's leave the world better than we found it...
06:45 PM on 11/29/2010
Hi Sarah,

Regarding your comments below about hurricanes and climate change, Publicola did a nice job of bringing you up to date on climate change and extreme weather trends.

It is a huge problem that the insurance industry has major exposure on. Lloyds insurance has a number of good reports on the impact of climate change on weather, business, and the economy, as does Swiss Ra. Google on "lloyds climate change 8020" for more on that.

For some stunning video of extreme rain, and interesting analysis by Lloyds, see:
http://8020vision.com/2010/09/11/extreme-rain/

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision
12:46 PM on 12/01/2010
There is not one scientific study that has linked storm intensity and frequency to human activities. There is simply no correlation whatsoever. Extremes bring destruction and the more there is along a coast line to be destroyed - the greater the financial loss when extreme conditions occur. Ditto in regard to the number of people living on the coast versus the number that are killed.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:59 PM on 12/01/2010
SarahCuda2: "There is not one scientific study that has linked storm intensity and frequency to human activities­."

Per the current state of the science storm intensity is indeed linked to human activities.

--------------------------------------------------------

Nature Geoscience, February 2010:

Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change

Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate — and if so, how — has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies.
04:16 PM on 11/29/2010
I'm not certain what they're going to talk about? According the latest GRACE satellite measurements, sea level rise has not been accelerating at all. The 'hot spot' in the mid to upper troposphere, an essential element predicted by AGW theory to prove a 'positive feedback' by water vapor - remains missing. Even the head of the IPCC now regrets the inclusion of the nonsense about Himalayan glacial retreat in their last report. Antarctica is gaining ice and getting colder while the Arctic seems to be confused about which way it wants to go. UC Berkeley department of integrative biology says Giant Red Wood trees in CA are growing much faster than they did 100 years ago and suspect that maybe the extra CO2 is the 'culprit'. Oh and all those severe hurricanes we've had in the last 7 years - not. I could on and on but let's face it - it's time to de-fund this $80 billion hoax based on the best politically motivated 'consensus' our tax money can buy.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:10 PM on 11/29/2010
SarahCuda2: "According the latest GRACE satellite measuremen­ts, sea level rise has not been accelerati­ng at all."

You seem confused, Sarah. GRACE satellite measurements have only been around long enough since 2002 - too short to accurately measure the rate of change in sea level. On the other hand:

"The average rate of sea level change obtained from tide gauges over the last century is +1.8 mm/year. In comparison, altimeter measurements have shown an average rise of +3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year since 1992. The causes of the present-day rate are a combination of increases in ocean temperatures and land ice melt from mountain glaciers, Greenland, and Antarctica."

http://earth.esa.int/workshops/venice06/participants/1092/paper_venice06.pdf

SarahCuda2: "The 'hot spot' in the mid to upper troposphere, an essential element predicted by AGW theory to prove a 'positive feedback' by water vapor - remains missing,"

You again seem confused. As the U.S. Climate Change Science Program explains:

"The most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the stratosphere has cooled . These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative forcing agents and with the results from model simulations."

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
07:14 PM on 11/29/2010
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.  He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
 
He says that the calims that the sea level is rising is a total fraud.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
07:15 PM on 11/29/2010
*claims
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:11 PM on 11/29/2010
SarahCuda2: "Even the head of the IPCC now regrets the inclusion of the nonsense about Himalayan glacial retreat in their last report."

While the IPCC incorrectly wrote 2035 instead of 2350, the science is clear that Himalayan glaciers -- as with glaciers as a whole worldwide -- are retreating.

SarahCuda2: "Antarctica is gaining ice"

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

Wrong. Antarctica is in fact losing ice.

SarahCuda2: "the Arctic seems to be confused about which way it wants to go"

Wrong again. The Arctic has in fact been losing ice volume over the past 3 decades.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

SarahCuda2: "UC Berkeley department of integrative biology says Giant Red Wood trees in CA are growing much faster than they did 100 years ago and suspect that maybe the extra CO2 is the 'culprit'."

Your implication that since some CO2 is good for plants more must be better is speciously facile. More info here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
07:23 PM on 11/29/2010
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice reach unprecedented levels:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/04/world-sea-ice-reaches-levels-unprecedented-in-25-years/
 
Ice cover 'increasing in east Antarctica':
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547067.htm?section=justin
 
Ice 'thickens' in West Antarctica:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1766064.stm
 
Antarctic sea ice increasing: study
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2550456.htm
 
Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening:
 http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
 
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:56 PM on 11/29/2010
Again, Antarctic­a is LOSING ice.

You didn't even bother to check the citation I provided, did you Denier.

Unlike your links, my link is both from a peer reviewed scientific journal and in reference to ALL of the Antarctic­ ice sheet.

From the reference:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19503, 4 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL040222

Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE

We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009...

In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.

http://www­.agu.org/p­ubs/crossr­ef/2009/20­09GL040222­.shtml
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ccairnes
"Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will"
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:28 PM on 11/29/2010
Ragnar: "Let's just call it the hoax it is and move on."

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropoge­nic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperatur­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* The atmospheri­c CO2 concentrat­ion has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* Satellite measuremen­ts demonstrat­e that increasing atmospheri­c CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere­.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­n for said atmospheri­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­n between said atmospheri­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropoge­nic global warming is overwhelmi­ng.
10:38 PM on 11/29/2010
Let me just take your first point.. 'highest level in 2,000 years or more." Numerous old and recent studies have found absolutely no evidence of this. It is generally agreed that it was as warm, or warmer, during the past two warm cycles. Even the National Academy of Sciences has come out repeatedly and allowed that there is no evidence that it is warmer now.
11:51 PM on 11/29/2010
NAS Study:
* There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years.
* Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.
* Very little confidence can be assigned to estimates of hemisphere average or global average temperature prior to A.D. 900 due to limited data coverage and challenges in analyzing older data.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#last
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3

Pretty strong statement of yours to say they have found "no" evidence of this, when clearly they have found evidence that "many" individual locations where higher....
11:52 PM on 11/29/2010
"were"
12:11 AM on 11/30/2010
Oh here we go again, Publicola, the world's most sarcastic and fervent proponent of AGW pseudo science is at it again.

* The Earth has warmed significan­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more."

Key word to this sentence is MAY, it MAY be the warmest period, then again, it MAY not. No argument here,. Funny as it sounds, we are about a degree warmer from the end of the "Little Ice Age" . If this is so, than by your logic doesn't that imply an extremely narrow temperature range in the last 2000 years ?

* Anthropoge­­nic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperatur­­e of the Earth would be below freezing."

Oh that's enlightening. So if the earth was a barren rock devoid of water and c02 we would have a climate not unlike the moon, which lacks an atmosphere. Again, more "what if " nonsense, Publicola.. The earth's greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly known to be due to water vapor. CO2 is about 5% of the greenhouse effect, and human derived CO2 contributions are but a fraction of that figure. Yes much of the ANTHROPOGENIC caused CO2 is burning fossil fuels, but natural sources still provide the vast majority of our CO2. get a life, man, you're boring
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:58 AM on 11/30/2010
Kidd: "Oh here we go again, Publicola, the world's most sarcastic and fervent proponent of AGW pseudo science is at it again."

Gee Kidd, after we repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about with respect to climate science over in the "Siberia's Climate Time Bomb" thread last week one might have thought that you'd be a little more humble when addressing the subject in the future, but hey whatever.

Do you, for example, now finally understand that your claim that Dr. Phil Jones "admitted there hasn't been any arming of significan­ce since 1998" is patently false?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/siberia-climate-change-methane_n_786554.html

Me: "The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more."

Kidd: "Key word to this sentence is MAY, it MAY be the warmest period, then again, it MAY not. No argument here."

Nice to see we agree on something. Moreover, and as the NOAA explains:

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

* The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Got that, Kidd?

The last 15 years are the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:04 AM on 11/30/2010
Kidd: "we are about a degree warmer from the end of the "Little Ice Age" . If this is so, than by your logic doesn't that imply an extremely narrow temperature range in the last 2000 years ?

Depends on what one means by "extremely narrow" in this context, of course. A mean temperature change of one degree C can and does make a big difference to global climate. For example, the ~1 degree C warming since the so-called "Little Ice Age" -- it wasn't a real ice age, of course -- makes the difference between lakes freezing over regularly and not. During this time the Norse colonies in Greenland cstarved and vanished too. Also when was the for example was last time people were able to walk across a frozen New York Harbor between Manhattan to Staten Island? In 1780, during the Little Ice Age.

In a larger context, the mean temperature of the Earth has "only" varied by about 10 degrees C over the past several million years - including through several glacial periods.

Kidd: "So if the earth was a barren rock devoid of water and C02 we would have a climate not unlike the moon, which lacks an atmosphere."

While that's also true, even in an scenario where the Earth still had all its water but without CO2, methane, and other "dry" greenhouse gases (GHGs) the mean temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EcoHustler
www.ecohustler.co.uk
02:02 PM on 11/29/2010
Breaking News: International Sex Scandal at COP 16: http://bit.ly/hWZQxa
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:08 PM on 11/30/2010
Flagged and erased in other threads. This poster is spamming with this junk.
01:07 PM on 11/29/2010
There expectations are low because the public is now aware of the peer-reviewed literature disputing their hysteria,

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:27 PM on 11/29/2010
Poptech's again referring to his own self-publi­shed populartechnology webpages, which are riddled with disinforma­­tion and lies.

For example, when are you going to remove the following patent, science denier tabloid-so­­urced lie from your "populartechnology" webpages, Poptech?

"Climatega­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

(Source: UK Daily Mail)

Oh, right - as you Poptech have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­ing that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinforma­­tion and lies off of your webpages.
07:03 PM on 12/01/2010
There is not a single piece of disinformation or lies anywhere on the site.

The article you mention is a legitimate news story and will never be removed unless the original source does,

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995 (Daily Mail, UK)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

I have repeatedly stated I would never remove a legitimate news story. Just remember there is NOTHING you can do about it.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:17 AM on 12/02/2010
Poptech: "There is not a single piece of disinforma­tion or lies anywhere on the site. The article you mention is a legitimate news story"

That Daily Mail tabloid news article that you link to on your webpages contains disinformation and outright lies - not the least of which is the headline itself, which as I've already explained to you in detail is a blatant, patent lie.

Again, here's the Economist on that the tabloid lie:

"Journalis­tic malpractic­e on global warming...

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite.He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climate_change_and_media

Poptech: "I have repeatedly stated I would never remove a legitimate news story."

You have repeated stated that you would never remove that tabloid "news" story - a tabloid "news" story where the headline is a patent lie, thus demonstrat­­­ing yet again that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinforma­­­tion and lies off of your webpages
07:24 PM on 11/29/2010
Poptech - have you disclosed your domain info yet? It is kind of hypocritical of you to lambast www.realclimate.org on the Heartlands Website while at the same time taking steps to keep secret your own domain info.

pretty telling really.
07:01 PM on 12/01/2010
Why would I disclose my personal information? I am a private person. It is good that you bring up the shill site RealClimate.org,

The Truth about RealClimate.org
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:19 AM on 12/02/2010
Poptech is yet again referring to his own self-publi­­shed "populartec­hnology" webpages, which are riddled with disinforma­­­tion and lies.

When are you going to remove the following patent lie from your "popularte­chnology" webpages, Poptech?

"Climatega­­­te U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"

Oh, right - as you Poptech have repeatedly told us you are "never" going to remove that lie, thus demonstrat­­­ing that you have no intent or interest in keeping disinforma­­­tion and lies off of your webpages.