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 (Page 1,650)

Showing posts 32,981 - 33,000 of42,957
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34946
Apr 7, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>babble, babble, babble
I like them all. Did you check out the rest?

You wanted experiments. I gave them to you.

And still you deny. But that's your job.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34947
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
How many explosions were there before the one in the desert?
None, there were experiments to make those uranium and plutonium isotopes critical, but no explosive tests until Trinity.

How many climate change mitigation experiments in the atmosphere? How many experiments that show a man made global climate change of any sort?

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34948
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
I like them all. Did you check out the rest? You wanted experiments. I gave them to you. And still you deny. But that's your job.
None of those test climate change mitigation or any man made change in the atmosphere. Those are all lab experiments.

I especially liked the very low climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, that's very reassuring.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34949
Apr 7, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
I like them all...
Did you like this conclusion from your link?

This experiment does not claim exactness of results, but it does show that one should not use the motor cars so much. Whoever wishes for a stabile climate should push his car!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34950
Apr 7, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the graph Krusty is so frightened of.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...
The lie? The hockey stick doesn't depend on the paleo reconstruction, but on the thermometer record.
But here's my question about that. The graph is paleo-reconstruction up until about 100 years ago. Marcott's smoothing shows no variability in 300 year time periods. So how can you compare a temperature record that shows yearly variability for 100 years to a proxy that shows no variability in 300 year time periods and then say that the paper shows without doubt that this is the fastest rise in temperature? The only way to compare is if you finish the graph with paleo-reconstruction.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34951
Apr 7, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>None of those test climate change mitigation or any man made change in the atmosphere. Those are all lab experiments.
I especially liked the very low climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, that's very reassuring.
So you like the one that SEEMS to back your viewpoint, but dismiss the rest as mere "lab experiments". News flash, Brain, the one you like was also a lab experiment.

All reinforce the AGW theory. You've been given experiments and you refuse to accept them because they destroy your argument.

Therefore, you have no argument.

Making you one of the biggest liars on this thread.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34952
Apr 7, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Did you like this conclusion from your link?
This experiment does not claim exactness of results, but it does show that one should not use the motor cars so much. Whoever wishes for a stabile climate should push his car!
See, people who do science have a sense of humor.
A sense of humor is different from what you do, which is called laughable.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34953
Apr 7, 2013
 
Here's another nail in your coffin, Brain:

Physicist Gilbert Plass undertook the task: firstly his work (published as a paper entitled The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, in the journal Tellus in 1956) confirmed that more carbon dioxide would have a warming effect and secondly that doubling levels of that gas would result in a warming of 3-4C. That, at mid-1950s emissions rates, would be a rise of around 1.1C per century. Plass wrote that if at the end of the 20th Century the average temperature had continued to rise, 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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34954
Apr 7, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
...Physicist Gilbert Plass ... doubling levels of that gas would result in a warming of 3-4C.... He had a hypothesis and made a prediction. We are in the experiment now, as it validates his prediction.
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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34955
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
So you like the one that SEEMS to back your viewpoint, but dismiss the rest as mere "lab experiments". News flash, Brain, the one you like was also a lab experiment. All reinforce the AGW theory. You've been given experiments and you refuse to accept them because they destroy your argument. Therefore, you have no argument. Making you one of the biggest liars on this thread.
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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34958
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34960
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34961
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34962
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34964
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34965
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 32,981 - 33,000 of42,957
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

57 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Tinka 1,033,263
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 5 min SLY WEST 1,020
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 min loose cannon 96,071
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 17 min _Zoey_ 4,026
Music Artists A to Z 17 min _Zoey_ 90
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min Poppo 167,498
Abby 4-17 24 min Mister Tonka 31
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••