Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
31,581 - 31,600 of 45,794 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33403
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Furthermore, you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
OK - I'll bite, trollbait.

Your news will certainly come as a huge surprise to the 620 million metric tons/sec hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion in the Sun right now.

Are you just trolling some piece of semantic sophistry, or do you really think you have some real point here?

Go ahead - let 'er rip, Einstein.
TrollBot

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33404
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you have come to the realisation that you jumped to completely wrong presumptions about my interpretation of this paper.
Apology accepted.
I agree this paper is certainly not an embarrassment for GW theory, and I never said it was.
As for the _A_ part of AGW Theory, I would only observe this paper really has nothing that bears one way or the other on this aspect.
Troll. Ignored.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33405
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - I'll bite, trollbait.
Your news will certainly come as a huge surprise to the 620 million metric tons/sec hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion in the Sun right now.
Are you just trolling some piece of semantic sophistry, or do you really think you have some real point here?
Go ahead - let 'er rip, Einstein.
Come on. Can't you tell the sun is not a nuclear reaction but it has such.

Reaction is a technical term, e.g. chemical reaction.

By the way, you actually showed your true colors when you dropped the A in AGW in your reply to Fair Game.

Oh noes!

Here's the latest from PNAS, just acquired after another search:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...

.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

It's the A, it's the A,...
yes

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33406
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

yes
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33407
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
..... you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33408
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> Come on. Can't you tell the sun is not a nuclear reaction but it has such.
Reaction is a technical term, e.g. chemical reaction.
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.

(spits out bait)
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, you actually showed your true colors when you dropped the A in AGW in your reply to Fair Game. Here's the latest from PNAS, just acquired after another search:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...
.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
It's the A, it's the A,...
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.

I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.

Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.

The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?

In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33409
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Jealous, you are because you can NOT cut and paste.
You posted 2H, 3H, 4He, etc. Furthermore, you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
Clearly, you never took any science classes.
So after all days and days you finally admit you really really don't know. You only have cut and paste. Here is your cahnce to show your own work and prove the sun is not a nuclear reaction.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33410
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Nah.

thermonuclear reaction
n
(Physics / Nuclear Physics) a nuclear fusion reaction occurring at a very high temperature: responsible for the energy produced in the sun, nuclear weapons, and fusion reactors See nuclear fusion, hydrogen bomb
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thermonuclea...

Do you read "occurring at?"

A reaction occurs or takes place. Our sun is a star in its nuclear fusion phase.

It's wrong to call it a nuclear reaction. But you may call it a nuclear (or a fusion) reactor.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33411
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isnít.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33412
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.
(spits out bait)
<quoted text>
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
It just happens that scientists rely on definitions to communicate. It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.

Why don't you look up the words, reactor and reaction!

It was a big hook that caught you.

As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.

That hook is still hurting you, so it shows. You just wanted to be a denier on the sly.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33413
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isnít.
Go find a hobby away from here.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33414
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Read from Wendler's paper:

In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.

See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33415
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
You are welcome.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33416
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.
Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.
More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.

Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.

I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.

If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33417
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Read from Wendler's paper:
In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.
See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.
I understand that's your view, yes.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33418
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that's your view, yes.
No, you don't.

You are a biased bystander here.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33419
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...
<quoted text>
More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.
Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.
I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.
If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...
I reverse all the name calling back at you.

You have no idea about me. I don't care about your personal views.

You can't handle the science.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33420
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:

A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]

Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33421
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:
A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]
Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.
Woh. Wiki?(shiver) No arguing with that - I must bow to the authority of Wiki. Nice shootin,' Tex - ya got me.

But - "name calling?" What "names" have I "called" you? Or anyone?

Oooooh. And I have "all the characteristics of a "DENIER!!!"

Just what are those characteristics, exactly? Did I not genuflect promptly enough when you tinkled your little jingle-bell? Did I not proclaim "AGW Akbar!!!" with sufficient vigor or something?

PLEEZE let me know - I SO want to be one of the Cool Kids in the AGW Club, Mr. Wizard!!!

/sarc

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33422
Jan 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A spnaking by tina seems to be a common theme in your posts. A phudd phantasy.
Like how your post lack any facts to back your claims. Or how you refer to those who prove you wrong as liars.

It seems like you are the one who has naughty fantasies about being over my knee with me applying a paddle to your rear.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

83 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min In The Right 1,079,957
Abby July 25, 2014 4 min Toj 8
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 8 min Terry rigsby 48,911
Ask Amy July 25, 2014 10 min Toj 4
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Rogue Scholar 05 174,628
Four Dead in Bridgeview Head-On Collision 12 min Bridgeview resident 71
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 15 min Sublime1 97,539
Amy 7-24 2 hr Mister Tonka 24
Abby 7-24 15 hr Pippa 42
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••