Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60030 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34956 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>All of them suggest a very low greenhouse gas effect, less than 1° C for each doubling of CO2. Very reassuring if you think we should do nothing.
For anybody who hasn't guessed, Brian is paid to flood this forum with misinformation day in day out.

Here's what the science says on climate sensitivity.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensi...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34957 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not an experiment, its a prediction.
It may be right or wrong, changes in temperature might have nothing to do with CO2. We won't know without an experiment.
BTW, all the CO2 sensitivity data in your lab experiments suggest a sensitivity of less than 1° C, far lower than Plas's assumption.
Plass wrote (in 1956) that if at the end of the 20th Century the average temperature had continued to rise,(which it has) it would be "firmly established" that carbon dioxide could cause climate change.

He had a hypothesis and made a prediction. We are in the experiment now, as it validates his prediction.

"changes in temperature might have nothing to do with CO2" Oh, so all the studies showing that it does are wrong?

Let's hear your explanation for the Earth warming up over the past 100 years.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34958 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>All of them suggest a very low greenhouse gas effect, less than 1° C for each doubling of CO2. Very reassuring if you think we should do nothing.
They are just lab experiments, you said. There's no proof that CO2 causes warming, you said.

So why are you talking about sensitivity now? Are you confused?

What do you think is causing the warming, Brain-dead?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#34959 Apr 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They are just lab experiments, you said. There's no proof that CO2 causes warming, you said.
So why are you talking about sensitivity now? Are you confused?
What do you think is causing the warming, Brain-dead?
It's an apt nick you have that fortunately for us not many others share otherwise we all would have never left the caves. 1 deg is more than enough for ocean temps to rise to cause havoc with tornado formation and a drastic change in weather patterns. The fact that man has the science and knowledge to do something about it and doesn't makes it even worse. What's even sadder a lot agree we are past the tipping point now and it just becomes the wait for the meteor to hit. Once countries can't feed themselves its a fight for survival, wars mean nothing. Just ask Nth Korea! That climate change is real.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

#34960 Apr 7, 2013
North and South Poles are very cold.

Here in Minnesota we are 2-3 weeks behind for springs arrival.

A year ago we had a warm spring and all the experts claimed it was more proof of global warming, just like rich fat cat Al Gore said.

Sooo doesn't this years cold spring mean Global Cooling?

You phocking "Experts" can't have it both ways.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34961 Apr 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They are just lab experiments, you said. There's no proof that CO2 causes warming, you said.
So why are you talking about sensitivity now? Are you confused?
What do you think is causing the warming, Brain-dead?
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.

I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN. His research involved scientists from many disciplines and was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming. But he said that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said. Dyson said these models included fudge factors and a major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

Dyson is now called a stupid man by those who don't want to debate the science. This quote seems to sum up the AGW science:

"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."

Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.

kristy

Titusville, FL

#34962 Apr 7, 2013
Christine wrote:
North and South Poles are very cold.
Here in Minnesota we are 2-3 weeks behind for springs arrival.
A year ago we had a warm spring and all the experts claimed it was more proof of global warming, just like rich fat cat Al Gore said.
Sooo doesn't this years cold spring mean Global Cooling?
You phocking "Experts" can't have it both ways.
So true. I remember last March they were trotting out the high to low records and touting it was due to global warming. It was all over the news. This year, I don't hear a peep about the low record temperatures. I live in Florida and this is the coldest March I can remember. Most of March has been in the 60s with lows in the 40s. We had 1 day that hit 90 and our local weather guy said that was the first time in 6 months we had hit 90 degrees.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#34964 Apr 7, 2013
Christine wrote:
North and South Poles are very cold.
Here in Minnesota we are 2-3 weeks behind for springs arrival.
A year ago we had a warm spring and all the experts claimed it was more proof of global warming, just like rich fat cat Al Gore said.
Sooo doesn't this years cold spring mean Global Cooling?
You phocking "Experts" can't have it both ways.
If you are an Al Gore disciple then I suggest you watch his movie a 100 times. What was predicted was the sort of weather that comes annually now which were once in 100 yr event previous. Just because it was called global warming doesn't f...g mean a string of hot summers. That's the BS that was grabbed onto by the non educated & ill informed. Global warming was always about sea temps rising, ice melting causing extreme weather events which include floods, rain, tornado's, snow dumps and yes long periods of drought. That was always the prediction, now what happens with the sceptics is they find a record from 1912 where there was a long period of drought. Then say its all part of a natural cycle, yes that is true but you only want that cycle to hit once in a century not every freaking year. That is the difference between man made climate change and the planet's natural cycle.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#34965 Apr 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. I remember last March they were trotting out the high to low records and touting it was due to global warming. It was all over the news. This year, I don't hear a peep about the low record temperatures. I live in Florida and this is the coldest March I can remember. Most of March has been in the 60s with lows in the 40s. We had 1 day that hit 90 and our local weather guy said that was the first time in 6 months we had hit 90 degrees.
See what I mean, you put holes in your own argument. What about the snow dumps on the east coast, and in Europe. The floods in Australia in the top half while the bottom half burns with wildfires due to the heat. Please don't try and tell us, this is normal. Floods and tornado's every year. Just see what what happens in your state this tornado season & check how many insurance companies will keep insuring your home after being belted year after year. Then you may not be so much of a sceptic!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34966 Apr 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.
I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN. His research involved scientists from many disciplines and was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming. But he said that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said. Dyson said these models included fudge factors and a major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
Dyson is now called a stupid man by those who don't want to debate the science. This quote seems to sum up the AGW science:
"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."
Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.
This is now your new material, huh?

Why did you change your position? Of course, you are clear that you disagree with science. the science that you know nothing of.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34967 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Blue Skies, that's the promise, we'll keep the atmosphere clean and bright. You don't want civilization to collapse after the poles melt and the seas rise.
Don't worry how we'll fix it, it doesn't matter.
Really!

Who are you fooling? Nobody other than yourself.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

#34968 Apr 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are an Al Gore disciple then I suggest you watch his movie a 100 times. What was predicted was the sort of weather that comes annually now which were once in 100 yr event previous. Just because it was called global warming doesn't f...g mean a string of hot summers. That's the BS that was grabbed onto by the non educated & ill informed. Global warming was always about sea temps rising, ice melting causing extreme weather events which include floods, rain, tornado's, snow dumps and yes long periods of drought. That was always the prediction, now what happens with the sceptics is they find a record from 1912 where there was a long period of drought. Then say its all part of a natural cycle, yes that is true but you only want that cycle to hit once in a century not every freaking year. That is the difference between man made climate change and the planet's natural cycle.
NO pissant, the "fad" (much like the hoolahoop) was originally called "Global Warming".

It was then discovered the Globe wasn't warming after all so the "Experts" were forced to change the name of their "Environmental Disaster" to "Climate Change".

You see then whatever happened to the Globe's weather could be blamed on human activity and all kinds of stupid changes could be made to prevent this junk science.

The net result is environmental wackos won't be happy until everyone on the globe is biking around wearing spandex. Once everything is changed to prevent Climate Change and the climate is still changing you wackos will be scratching your heads and finally realize the change is a natural climate cycle caused by non-human forces that man has no control over.

Wackos always must have a cause to protest for/against. Whatever happened to that protest where you camped out in tents, Oh that's right it got too cold never mind. Mindless idiots every one.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34969 Apr 7, 2013
Climate change believers are small minded climate cowards who like to also rubber neck car accidents and pull fire alarms and were probably beaten up by their younger sisters. You are Reefer Madness clowns for your kids to laugh at.
For you remaining "impressionable" climate blame believers it must make your tiny little fists clench in girly rage at the very thought that climate change could be a total exaggeration leaving our children averting the worst crisis imaginable. Who’s the neocon again here? Stop fear mongering our children and leave the real loving of the planet to the former believers. We are better planet lovers and you remaining doomers are the new neocons of fear mongering for the history books.
Christine

Minneapolis, MN

#34970 Apr 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean, you put holes in your own argument. What about the snow dumps on the east coast, and in Europe. The floods in Australia in the top half while the bottom half burns with wildfires due to the heat. Please don't try and tell us, this is normal. Floods and tornado's every year. Just see what what happens in your state this tornado season & check how many insurance companies will keep insuring your home after being belted year after year. Then you may not be so much of a sceptic!!
Oh sheet here we go..

The Sandy storm destroyed so many homes along the shore.

Ya fool, and one homeowner was interviewed who built her home a little higher up on the lot and had NO DAMAGE. She said all the people on the block called her a fool, just like the little pigs who built their house of straw. The woman with the house built higher had little damage, the others were destroyed.

And then the islands that were destroyed were called "Barrier" island and were never intended to be built on but used as barrier islands to protect NYC.

You phocking stupid NYers went ahead and built on them anyway.

Knock yourself out.

Sorry tornados happen every year in the real world!!

Maybe you should knock off the POT?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#34971 Apr 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.
I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN. His research involved scientists from many disciplines and was based on experimentation. The scientists studied such questions as how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with plant life and the role of clouds in warming. But he said that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said. Dyson said these models included fudge factors and a major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.
Dyson is now called a stupid man by those who don't want to debate the science. This quote seems to sum up the AGW science:
"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable."
Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.
All this from a man who stated,"We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes."

Of course he evidently does not understand how the ecology of the Earth is utterly dependent upon the interrelationships between the species.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34972 Apr 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
I was reading an interview with Freeman Dyson who was involved with early research on climate change at the Institute for Energy Analysis in Oak Ridge, TN.
The most credible critic of AGW is somebody who studied it for a year in the 1970s?

No, he wasn't involved in research- the group he was with studied the issue.

What conclusion did they come to?

"These studies led to widespread concern that human activities, notably deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, were contributing to pronounced changes in the global climate."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmembe...

You need to be a bit less gullible and treat the stuff you read on wattsupwithtwat a bit more sceptically.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34973 Apr 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean, you put holes in your own argument. What about the snow dumps on the east coast, and in Europe. The floods in Australia in the top half while the bottom half burns with wildfires due to the heat. Please don't try and tell us, this is normal. Floods and tornado's every year. Just see what what happens in your state this tornado season & check how many insurance companies will keep insuring your home after being belted year after year. Then you may not be so much of a sceptic!!
You are way too funny. Floods and tornadoes aren't normal every year? LOL. Droughts don't happen all around the world every year?

A CRU scientist told us this in the year 2000 in regards to Europe and snow:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

And this quote from David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire: "Ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold."

Seriously, extreme weather has happened throughout the history of Earth. Take a look at this list and tell me that our current conditions are out of the ordinary:

http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-stuff-happens....
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34974 Apr 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>This is now your new material, huh?
Why did you change your position? Of course, you are clear that you disagree with science. the science that you know nothing of.
You are so dense. This has always been by position.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#34975 Apr 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
All this from a man who stated,"We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes."
Of course he evidently does not understand how the ecology of the Earth is utterly dependent upon the interrelationships between the species.
Care to elaborate on Dyson's open source sharing and tell me it isn't already starting to happen.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34976 Apr 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so dense[name calling]. This has always been by[sic] position.
LIAR.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate change science and telling everyone that the science is settled is one of the greatest letdowns in science. When you freeze the debate and rely on a science that has been settled since 1981, then it really is hard to come out later and say we might have overestimated man's CO2 impact on the climate. The good news is that now more scientists are questioning the impact of AGW and maybe, just maybe a reasonable debate can proceed.
..
Not one scientist is debating that the Earth hasn't warmed. The debate is over how much man's contribution is to the warming and the Earth's feedback system and sensitivity. Now that CO2 has continued to skyrocket and the temperatures have stayed flat for the last 17 years, at last, many scientists are starting to question their computer models.
This disjointed stuff is your new position but you are too unaware when you copy/paste denier material.

What's not new is your rudeness.

Skyrocket? About ninety million tons of man-made CO2 are emitted into our atmosphere daily. Just the way you like it!

The climate-change payback is in the works but you are unaware of it in your denier position.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Grey Ghost 1,394,728
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 28 min Jacques Orleans 216,585
last post wins! (Apr '13) 2 hr Red_Forman 1,108
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr Red_Forman 2,131
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 7 hr Fa-Foxy 10
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 7 hr Anthony Scarpuzzi... 1,660
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 9 hr GEORGIA 2,681
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr Dregs Historian 102,451
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages