Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I said there were many questions that had to be posed to the "Chicken littles"

Another problem is that, according to Richard Lindzen of MIT- "Climate alwayus changes"

Indeed, evidence from ice cores, tree rings, pollen in lake beds, and mineral deposits in caves show that surface temperatures in some centuries have been very different from temperatures in others.

From roughly 800 AD to 1200 AD, during what is called the Medieval Warm Period- the Northern Hemisphere became so hot that the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland.

James Watt invented the steam engine in 1768, quite a few years after the Medieval Warm Period.

Shouldn't it be 100 senators? Where are the 5 missing senators?

I guess they did not vote. Do you have evidence that my figures are incorrect? If so, please produce it. I stand by my original figure of 95-0.

Did they do this twice? (The last session of the 'Kyoto protocol' was in December 1997, and in July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.).)

In 1997 Not Voting - 5
Bryan (D-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grams (R-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Reid (D-NV)

To find out stuff like that, first you go here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_105_1.htm

find the piece of legislation and go to its detail page:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

Unanimous means 100%. That is not unanimous. 5 abstained or did not vote.

You are correct. 95-0 is not unanimous. Unanimous means in complete accord. I will revise my statement. Excluding those the five who did not vote, the Senate voted 95-0 not to ratify the Kyoto Accord in July 1997 because it exempted "Developing nations" and would cause "serious damage to the US economy.

Wikipedia- The free encylopedia on line has an excellent article on the Kyoto Protocol. It was, according to the article, indeed rejected by the US Senate in July 1997 as I have indicated. It was not pressed, according to Wikipedia, by the Clinton Administration, since the Clinton Administration was aware of the stance of the Senate on this issue.

There has been action in the Senate after 1997 but the Senate has never accepted the Kyoto Protocol.

I have made two posts on global warming. One pointed out the Kyoto Protocol and the fact that the US Senate did not endorse it, the second post, which has garnered no response, told of the
Medieval Warm Period.

Since there are quite a few items that question the concept of "global warming" , I will continue.

The National Academy of Sciences went on record to state that:

quote

"Because there is CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENTATIVE..."

Winds of Change
The Texas Observer talks with environmentalist Bill McKibben about global warming
by Jake Bernstein
November 4, 2005



Global warming won't be all bad... you ought to be buying some property in Alaska. I've heard there are those in Canada who are thrilled at the thought of using some of that taiga for agriculture.

Most of us know about the little warming trend about 800-1000 years ago... anyone who has read The Greenlanders, for example.

Here's a fun kid's learning session from NASA...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Laboratory/PlanetEarthScience/GlobalWarming/GW.html

Sure. We might as well look at the data:



You will notice that within a mere 100 years, temperatures went up from significantly below the Medieval Warm Period to a level higher than they have ever been during the time where "the Northern Hemisphere became so hot that the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland".

"SEPP is not the only group who share the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that anything humans are doing has a significant impact on global climatology.

It is our right as a sovereign nation to look out for the best interests of the United States because it is damn sure nobody else is going to."

I find your arrogance quite insufferable at times Fox. The consensus scientific world opinion is that global warming is a fact and is anthropogenic.

But you behind the wheel of your SUV as you go 3 miles to the grocery store know better.

I am critical of you, not for driving an SUV, but for your lack of understanding and humility.

Mars is warming up, too. Is it the Martians that are causing it?

I don't know, JW. But are you denying we should be interested in the climate changes of the planet we are actually living on? If observing changes on Mars helps us understand what's going on on Earth, sure. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that evaluating the domestic influences on Earth's climate might prove helpful.

(Oh, btw, the NASA is saying that global warming is caused by CO2 and human influence? Hmmmm.... What do they want to achieve? Run the US economy into the ground? Unpatriotic bastards.)

I suppose, oe, you are aware of the common German saying "shooting someone to Mars"? Perhaps JW took it literally and just is interrogating the perspectives ...


(ican, btw, is the specialist on Mars climate.)

I can confirm this, Ican has had his head stuck in the sands of Mars for a long time.

Hehehehehe! Ausgezeichnet, Walter! That might just be possible!

Hum, and another saying pops to my mind: Hinterm Mond leben....

You obviously have not been reading my posts. I don't drive the SUV to the grocery store though it does get some better mileage than my little bitty car and would make perfectly good sense to do so. Do you have a problem with an SUV that gets better gas mileage than most non-SUV's sold in this country? You think I am insufferably arrogant? What have I said that indicates I do not have concern for the environment and/or am not willing to do my part to do what is right? Who are you to judge because I choose to look at all the science out there instead of just following one particular herd?

And how arrogant is it to assume that because I have a different opinion from you, that I am evil? Who are you who has no clue where I live, under what conditions I live, under what circumstances I must conduct my life to presume to tell me how I must live?

Not denying we should be interested, just not in agreement with the way to go about it. I take it from your posts that you're solidly behind the Kyoto sham. It's all but dead and even one of it's most enthusiastic supporters has suggested this. Read Blair's comments in a speech he gave in New York recently.



and...



It's your opinion, apparently, that the best method to tackle global warming (assuming it's the alarming threat you think it is) is through international treaties (Kyoto-style - not working) and it's my opinion that there's a better way - perhaps through developing new technology.

How about a compromise? You do it your way and we'll do it our way.

The image "http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpop.gif" cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Historical Estimates of World Population

(Population in millions. When lower and upper estimates are the same they are shown under "Lower.")

Year Summary Biraben Durand Haub McEvedy
and Jones Thomlinson UN, 1993 UN, 1999 USCB
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
-10000 1 10 4 1 10
-8000 5 5
-6500 5 10 5 10
-5000 5 20 5 5 20
-4000 7 7
-3000 14 14
-2000 27 27
-1000 50 50
-500 100 100
-400 162 162
-200 150 231 231 150
1 170 400 255 270 330 300 170 200 200 400 300
200 190 256 256 190
400 190 206 206 190
500 190 206 206 190
600 200 206 206 200
700 207 210 207 210
800 220 224 224 220
900 226 240 226 240
1000 254 345 254 275 345 265 310
1100 301 320 301 320
1200 360 450 400 450 360
1250 400 416 416 400
1300 360 432 432 360 400
1340 443 443
1400 350 374 374 350
1500 425 540 460 440 540 425 500
1600 545 579 579 545
1650 470 545 500 545 500 470 545
1700 600 679 679 610 600
1750 629 961 770 735 805 795 720 700 629 961 790
1800 813 1,125 954 900 900 813 1,125 980
1850 1,128 1,402 1,241 1,265 1,200 1,200 1,128 1,402 1,260
1900 1,550 1,762 1,633 1,650 1,710 1,656 1,625 1,600 1,550 1,762 1,650
1910 1,750 1,750
1920 1,860 1,860
1930 2,070 2,070
1940 2,300 2,300
1950 2,400 2,557 2,527 2,516 2,500 2,400 2,486 2,520 2,557

Sources:

Biraben, Jean-Noel, 1980, An Essay Concerning Mankind's Evolution,
Population, Selected Papers, December, table 2.

Durand, John D., 1974, "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation,"
University of Pennsylvania, Population Center,
Analytical and Technical Reports, Number 10, table 2.

Haub, Carl, 1995, "How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?"
Population Today, February, p. 5.

McEvedy, Colin and Richard Jones, 1978, "Atlas of World Population History,"
Facts on File, New York, pp. 342-351.

Thomlinson, Ralph, 1975, "Demographic Problems, Controversy Over Population Control,"
Second Edition, Table 1.

United Nations (UN), 1973, The Determinants and Consequences of
Population Trends, Population Studies, No. 50., p.10.

United Nations, 1999, The World at Six Billion, Table 1, "World Population From"
Year 0 to Stabilization, p. 5,
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 2005, "Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050",
Data updated 4-26-2004,
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
International Programs Center.

Last Revised: 26 Apr 2005 09:07:21 EDT
IPC: < World Pop | IDB | HIV/AIDS | Publications | Library | CSPro | IMPS | PAS | RUP | Tech Assistance/Training | Workshops >
Skip this main site navigation menu
Census Bureau Links: Home · Search · Subjects A-Z · FAQs · Data Tools · Catalog · Census 2000 · Quality · Privacy Policy · Contact Us

U.S. Census Bureau: Helping You Make Informed Decisions


The exploding world population with greater urban areas and combined industrial and traffic heat output could also contribute to global warming.

U.S. Census Bureau
Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050 Year Population Average annual
growth rate (%) Average annual
population change
1950 2,556,517,137 1.47 37,798,160
1951 2,594,315,297 1.61 42,072,962
1952 2,636,388,259 1.71 45,350,197
1953 2,681,738,456 1.77 47,979,452
1954 2,729,717,908 1.87 51,465,740
1955 2,781,183,648 1.89 52,974,870
1956 2,834,158,518 1.95 55,842,882
1957 2,890,001,400 1.94 56,522,767
1958 2,946,524,167 1.76 52,351,768
1959 2,998,875,935 1.39 42,090,531

1960 3,040,966,466 1.33 40,782,196
1961 3,081,748,662 1.80 55,995,030
1962 3,137,743,692 2.19 69,519,033
1963 3,207,262,725 2.19 71,119,386
1964 3,278,382,111 2.08 68,979,816
1965 3,347,361,927 2.07 70,182,601
1966 3,417,544,528 2.02 69,689,877
1967 3,487,234,405 2.04 71,794,577
1968 3,559,028,982 2.07 74,579,864
1969 3,633,608,846 2.05 75,142,514

1970 3,708,751,360 2.07 77,391,102
1971 3,786,142,462 2.00 76,476,397
1972 3,862,618,859 1.95 75,970,556
1973 3,938,589,415 1.88 74,885,210
1974 4,013,474,625 1.80 72,998,197
1975 4,086,472,822 1.73 71,516,414
1976 4,157,989,236 1.72 72,098,269
1977 4,230,087,505 1.69 72,025,391
1978 4,302,112,896 1.72 74,827,692
1979 4,376,940,588 1.71 75,704,974

1980 4,452,645,562 1.69 76,038,009
1981 4,528,683,571 1.75 79,722,408
1982 4,608,405,979 1.75 81,441,019
1983 4,689,846,998 1.70 80,257,445
1984 4,770,104,443 1.70 81,750,075
1985 4,851,854,518 1.70 83,362,927
1986 4,935,217,445 1.73 86,023,275
1987 5,021,240,720 1.71 86,724,868
1988 5,107,965,588 1.68 86,758,510
1989 5,194,724,098 1.68 88,041,729

1990 5,282,765,827 1.58 84,050,074
1991 5,366,815,901 1.55 84,045,822
1992 5,450,861,723 1.49 81,716,293
1993 5,532,578,016 1.45 80,846,508
1994 5,613,424,524 1.43 80,993,936
1995 5,694,418,460 1.38 79,045,988
1996 5,773,464,448 1.36 78,896,320
1997 5,852,360,768 1.31 77,375,209
1998 5,929,735,977 1.28 76,427,042
1999 6,006,163,019 1.25 75,364,877

2000 6,081,527,896 1.22 74,414,630
2001 6,155,942,526 1.19 73,686,642
2002 6,229,629,168 1.17 73,483,285
2003 6,303,112,453 1.16 73,750,665
2004 6,376,863,118 1.16 74,195,672
2005 6,451,058,790 1.15 74,427,813
2006 6,525,486,603 1.14 74,629,207
2007 6,600,115,810 1.13 74,940,532
2008 6,675,056,342 1.12 75,228,043
2009 6,750,284,385 1.11 75,466,071

2010 6,825,750,456 1.10 75,688,866
2011 6,901,439,322 1.09 75,802,963
2012 6,977,242,285 1.08 75,615,963
2013 7,052,858,248 1.06 75,167,390
2014 7,128,025,638 1.04 74,490,498
2015 7,202,516,136 1.02 73,766,792
2016 7,276,282,928 1.00 73,055,605
2017 7,349,338,533 0.98 72,230,253
2018 7,421,568,786 0.96 71,289,623
2019 7,492,858,409 0.93 70,235,773

2020 7,563,094,182 0.91 69,180,831
2021 7,632,275,013 0.89 68,144,353
2022 7,700,419,366 0.87 67,028,250
2023 7,767,447,616 0.84 65,862,519
2024 7,833,310,135 0.82 64,679,285
2025 7,897,989,420 0.80 63,596,858
2026 7,961,586,278 0.78 62,635,490
2027 8,024,221,768 0.77 61,689,308
2028 8,085,911,076 0.75 60,746,079
2029 8,146,657,155 0.73 59,800,227

2030 8,206,457,382 0.72 58,925,303
2031 8,265,382,685 0.70 58,132,001
2032 8,323,514,686 0.69 57,333,600
2033 8,380,848,286 0.67 56,512,857
2034 8,437,361,143 0.66 55,666,984
2035 8,493,028,127 0.64 54,846,652
2036 8,547,874,779 0.63 54,058,633
2037 8,601,933,412 0.62 53,249,683
2038 8,655,183,095 0.60 52,414,904
2039 8,707,597,999 0.59 51,542,658

2040 8,759,140,657 0.58 50,686,755
2041 8,809,827,412 0.56 49,847,392
2042 8,859,674,804 0.55 48,957,732
2043 8,908,632,536 0.54 48,019,825
2044 8,956,652,361 0.52 47,040,969
2045 9,003,693,330 0.51 46,074,635
2046 9,049,767,965 0.50 45,123,225
2047 9,094,891,190 0.48 44,148,176
2048 9,139,039,366 0.47 43,161,841
2049 9,182,201,207 0.46 42,174,749

2050 9,224,375,956
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base.
Note: Data updated 4-26-2005 (Release notes).
IPC: < World Pop | IDB | HIV/AIDS | Publications | Library | CSPro | IMPS | PAS | RUP | Tech Assistance/Training | Workshops >
Skip this main site navigation menu
Census Bureau Links: Home · Search · Subjects A-Z · FAQs · Data Tools · Catalog · Census 2000 · Quality · Privacy Policy · Contact Us

U.S. Census Bureau: Helping You Make Informed Decisions


The chart did not come but there are the numbers.