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

Full story: Newsday 49,366
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34470 Feb 24, 2013
WASHINGTON — Earth's increasingly hot, wet climate has cut the amount of work people can do in the worst heat by about 10 percent in the past six decades, and that loss in labor capacity could double by mid-century, U.S. government scientists reported on Sunday.

Because warmer air can hold more moisture than cooler air, there's more absolute humidity in the atmosphere now than there used to be. And as anyone who has sweltered through a hot, muggy summer knows, it's more stressful to work through hot months when the humidity is high.

To figure out the stress of working in hotter, wetter conditions, experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at military and industrial guidelines already in place for heat stress, and set those guidelines against climate projections for how hot and humid it's likely to get over the next century.

Their findings were stark: "We project that heat stress-related labor capacity losses will double globally by 2050 with a warming climate," said lead author John Dunne of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton.

Work capability is already down to 90 percent during the most hot and humid periods, Dunne and his co-authors wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change. Using a middle-of-the-road projection of future temperature and humidity, they estimate that could drop to 80 percent by 2050.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>> <><><>

Just one more example of the hidden costs of global warming.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34471 Feb 24, 2013
PHD wrote:
Then there is scientific science fiction believers.
"are". you idiot.

Then there are scientific science fiction believers.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34472 Feb 24, 2013
I could be but I could not compete with you, your the better idiot.Oh you only understand scientific science fiction real science would scare you to death.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34473 Feb 24, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Work capability is already down to 90 percent during the most hot and humid periods.....Using a middle-of-the-road projection of future temperature and humidity, they estimate that could drop to 80 percent by 2050.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>> <><><>
Just one more example of the hidden costs of global warming.
Never understood how highway crews could lay blacktop in Arizona hot weather.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#34474 Feb 24, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Never understood how highway crews could lay blacktop in Arizona hot weather.
it takes a real man.
Slow

AOL

#34475 Feb 24, 2013
Slow, very slow moving
Daniel557

Tulsa, OK

#34476 Feb 24, 2013
I wish more people were aware of the fact that it’s now relatively cheap to run a home solar power system. Some people are even taking themselves off the grid altogether now… There are some great guides out there on how to do this, some of which are listed on this site www.diyenergyreview.com if you’re interested?
PHD

Overton, TX

#34477 Feb 25, 2013
The above #34473 is overdue its diaper change. It must have another BS rash.
lucy

UK

#34478 Feb 25, 2013
Guys please take notice of the racism in usa its been proven obama wants the white race out of usa check out the proof on www.youtube.com/lucygreytv

Since: Mar 09

San Marcos, TX

#34479 Feb 25, 2013
lucy wrote:
Guys please take notice of the racism in usa its been proven obama wants the white race out of usa check out the proof on www.youtube.com/lucygreytv
Seems that you are just another hater. Simmer down and smell the roses. Quit going to those places that exist by trying to stir up trouble.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#34480 Feb 26, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you're talking to the wrong guy. If you have HALF a gonad & disagree with Wiki, then YOU sign of there & tell them exactly how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail.
Otherwise, around here, S.T.F.U. PERIOD.
No, Wiki is NOTHING like the Enquirer. You, however, appear to be not only a coward, but psychotically detached from reality. PERIOD.
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.

Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.

And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34481 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Thank goodness for people like him trying to keep morons like you off Wikpedia.

You already have your own version anyway- the science denial Conservapedia- where you can read the views of cranks and charlatans on everything from quantum physics to evolution to global warming.

Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus from the scientific literature, and long may it do so. No, your ignorance is not as good as their knowledge.

Piss off back to the dark ages where you belong.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34482 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.
And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...
Your source for this information is Mark Moran. That disqualifies you.

Your still very sloppy in you writing. I'll bet your house is a mess too.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34483 Feb 27, 2013
Teener's living right there in the worst of it and yet she continues to deny.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Built at sea level on reclaimed wetland, Norfolk has faced floods throughout its 400-year history. But as the Atlantic Ocean warms and expands, and parts of the city subside, higher tides and fiercer storms seem to hit harder than they used to.

Dealing with this increased threat has put Norfolk at the forefront of American cities taking the lead on coping with intense weather, from floods to droughts to killer heat, without waiting for the federal government to take the lead.

In Norfolk, home to the largest U.S. Naval base and the second biggest commercial port on the U.S. Atlantic coast, floods are a perennial problem that has worsened in recent decades, Assistant City Manager Ron Williams Jr told Reuters.

The relative sea level around Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches (.37 meter) since 1930, when the low-lying downtown area routinely flooded. The floods are worse now, because the water doesn't have to rise as high to send the river above its banks and into the streets, Williams said.

At the same time, severe storms are more frequent.

"We've had more major storms in the past decade than we've had in the previous four decades," he said.

Extreme rainfall events have increased too.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>

But then, that how stupid people drown.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34484 Feb 27, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, then lets look at what William Connolley was doing at Wikipedia. He was an editor and was deleting or changing entries that he disagreed with and banned those with opposing views. The straw that broke wikipedia's back was comments attributed to one individual that he had not said. He tried to remove the inaccurate quote only to have Connolley replace it (a common tactic on Wikipeida) and had to resort to legal action before they would remove it to only have Connolley replace it again. Finally Wikipedia had to remove Connelley. Considering that he had entered or edited over five thousand entries on the subject of climate change means that unless Wikipeida would dump the entire subject and start over it will be haunted by those errors for decades.
Of course those are not the only entries that have been found to be biased. Wikipedia has a host of people intentionally editing in favor of one agenda or another. The reason why professors will not accept it as a source.
And for your small-D democratic environment of wikipedia has become stagent. The number of people contributing has cease to increase and the same stale individuals are now the ones making entries, turning it into more of a dictatorship in the flavor of China or the former USSR.
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education...
And? So?

You think it's somehow odd that there are editing wars, or that one person was found to be biased? The mere fact that the editing war occurred, & that much of what Connolley said was removed, makes my point that Wiki tends to move toward the truth.

It's arrantly ABSURD to compare Wiki to a communist state where the party has control over everything. Wiki is a DEMOCRATIC environment where anyone can sign on, the exact opposite of totalitarian control.

Wiki is still a good starting place because they link to other sources. You can check everything they say.

You're STILL complaining in the wrong place. If you think Wiki is wrong, then YOU should sign on there & tell them just that.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34485 Feb 27, 2013
Erratum:

I should have included, in my first long paragraph, the caveat "assumming your account of what happened with Connolley is correct." I'm not necessarily conceding that, given what I know about your other posts & how much you misunderstand scientific facts.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34486 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Teener's living right there in the worst of it and yet she continues to deny.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>
Built at sea level on reclaimed wetland, Norfolk has faced floods throughout its 400-year history. But as the Atlantic Ocean warms and expands, and parts of the city subside, higher tides and fiercer storms seem to hit harder than they used to.
Dealing with this increased threat has put Norfolk at the forefront of American cities taking the lead on coping with intense weather, from floods to droughts to killer heat, without waiting for the federal government to take the lead.
In Norfolk, home to the largest U.S. Naval base and the second biggest commercial port on the U.S. Atlantic coast, floods are a perennial problem that has worsened in recent decades, Assistant City Manager Ron Williams Jr told Reuters.
The relative sea level around Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches (.37 meter) since 1930, when the low-lying downtown area routinely flooded. The floods are worse now, because the water doesn't have to rise as high to send the river above its banks and into the streets, Williams said.
At the same time, severe storms are more frequent.
"We've had more major storms in the past decade than we've had in the previous four decades," he said.
Extreme rainfall events have increased too.
<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><><>
But then, that how stupid people drown.
Here's Norfolk after Sandy, which didn't hit Norfolk.... except.......
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFr...

Not even my car that I just switched to 17 inch tires would have been saved. & my little 25 year old Ford Festiva would have been toast...... soggy toast.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34487 Feb 27, 2013
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...

Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.

<><><>< ><><><> <>

Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.

...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.

<><><>< ><><><> <><>

Very interesting read.

The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34488 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...
Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.
<><><>< ><><><> <>
Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.
...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.
<><><>< ><><><> <><>
Very interesting read.
The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
Why are they very angry?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34489 Feb 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
A study described at http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/26/...
Facts to denialists are like throwing gas on a fire; they use them to build more denialism.
<><><>< ><><><> <>
Concerning climate denial, a case in point is the response to events surrounding the illegal hacking of personal emails by climate scientists, mainly at the University of East Anglia, in 2009. Selected content of those emails was used to support the theory that climate scientists conspired to conceal evidence against climate change or manipulated the data (see, e.g., Montford, 2010; Sussman, 2010). After the scientists in question were exonerated by 9 investigations in 2 countries, including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U. K., those exonerations were re-branded as a whitewash”(see, e.g., U.S. Representative Rohrabacher’s speech in Congress on 8 December 2011), thereby broadening the presumed involvement of people and institutions in the alleged conspiracy.
...the authors discuss implications for science communication, and, unlike most people, I think they actually understand the problem. That is, you can’t fix this problem with more communication, and more data. The nature of the conspiracy theorist is that all additional data and all contradictory data will only be used to demonstrate further evidence of conspiracy, that the conspiracy is even larger, or that the data are fraudulent. The “self-sealing” nature of the conspiracy theory, as the authors describe it, makes it fundamentally immune to penetration by logic, reason, or additional information.
<><><>< ><><><> <><>
Very interesting read.
The implication is that deniers are very frightened people; afraid of the threat to their lifestyle, their job, their SUV and Ski-Doo; scared of change, scared of the new and the unknown.
Agree, caveman, very interesting study. On an open forum, though, there are reasons to challenge deniers:

1. There are always lurkers, some of whom will have open minds. They may appreciate solid reasoning & links.

2. Climate is such a planetary emergency that we may have to force some deniers into action. If we wait for current deniers to die off & be replaced by children who've been exposed to climate science from a young age, it may be too late. By then we may have already passed tipping points.

We may have already guaranteed partial collapse of ice sheets & corresponding sea level rise of 12-15 meters or more. The droughts may collapse agriculture long before that happens.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RealDave 1,156,213
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Learn to Read 182,191
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 39 min KiMare 51,305
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL 71,272
last post wins! (Apr '13) 3 hr L Morales 411
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Mandela 68,913
Holiday Greetings 5 hr Ebeneizer Scrooge 3
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:03 am PST

NBC Sports 6:03AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015
NBC Sports 7:32 AM
Full-blown Bears house-cleaning could be coming
Bleacher Report 6:10 PM
Could Cutler, Shanahan Reunion Work for Jets?