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 1,654)

Showing posts 33,061 - 33,080 of45,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35028
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The excuses shift every time.
First it was all a fraud.
Then you thought the smoothing removed evidence of past warming:
<quoted text>
When you were shown that the smoothing wouldn't remove similar spikes, you shifted to sating that the proxies wouldn't record such spikes.
As I said before, you are in denial. Evidence is met by excuses; when one excuse is shown to be lam, you simply pick another one.
Believe temperature spikes happened before and the proxies missed them if you like: the absence of evidence for fairies doesn't mean fairies don't exist.
But your belief goes against physical reality: temperatures have spiked in the last 100 years, but they are not going to go down again in the same sort of period- not for centuries or millennia, not as long as CO2 levels remain this high and rising.
There is no physical mechanism know to science that could explain a temperature spike like this that would disappear as quickly as it appeared.
You not only believe in a phenomenon for which there is no evidence, you believe in a phenomenon which defies physics.
Believing in fairies would be more rational.
But anything is better than having to question your ideology, isn't it?
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.

I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.

So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35029
Apr 9, 2013
 
Wow. Like I said, the new crssty is flakey.

Without science, it looks at words. No one can take it out of its stuckiness. So hilarious to observe!

I just love it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35030
Apr 9, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:
The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.
I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.
So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?
Yada yada.

Twisty Kristy.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35031
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]Most of the air's CO2 is natural[/QUOTE]

Yes, the natural level of CO2 that flora & fauna have adjusted to, during previous many millenia, is a level of 280ppm.
But most of the excess CO2 above the pre-industrial level is emitted by man-made smokestacks, engines & tailpipes.

"lyin' brian" is the worst of liars, a liar of shift & change, saying short phrases & sentences which seem reasonable, but to the case in point, do not apply or not correct.

Even to the point of 'lyin' brian', it will NOT be the case in 100+ years, at man unkind's present or greater rate of emissions.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35032
Apr 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

What I can't understand with the deniers is a world population that has gone from 200 million in year 1 to over 7 billion now. By 2020 close to 8 billion and almost 80% of the planet's forests gone. All of this is part of the natural cycle according to the deniers and has no impact. The oceans will of course take up the slack to provide the oxygen that missing rain forests can't any more. This is the mythical world they live in all so they can keep driving that big ass truck and no change in lifestyle.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35033
Apr 9, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to remove carbon dioxide from the air, go for it. I'm not stopping you.
Just don't raise taxes on energy and fuel, then we've got no dispute.
Oh, no, no, no, LameBrain_G, who gets hoisted by his own petard.

You wrote:
"Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

We weren't even talking about taxes. I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

What do you mean? Are you saying climate change mitigation is possible?

I want an answer. Because this seems to be a reversal of your long-standing and solidly scientific position.

Answer me, Brian.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35034
Apr 9, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most of the air's CO2 is natural. We are part of nature, the carbon balance. We are the tipping point, life's brief flame between birth and death.
We are free carbon.
Do you have any figures for that "most". Give us a percentage.

Oh, and where you get it from, you know, the source.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35035
Apr 10, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
Wow. Like I said, the new crssty is flakey.
Without science, it looks at words. No one can take it out of its stuckiness. So hilarious to observe!
I just love it!
How many times have you seen Deniers like her, like Brian, like that loon from Canada who used to post here (what was his name?) just grab onto ONE point, ONE issue, ONE slogan and ride it into the ground?

You can tell just from that that they don't do or understand science. Scientists are always interested in more and better facts and information. Deniers want to avoid that at all costs.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35036
Apr 10, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made no excuses and nothing has shifted. I said that the press release of Marcott's paper said that there has been no increase in temperature like that in the 20th century. But when Marcott released his FAQ, he then admitted this:
The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record.
I then asked how can you compare paleotemperatures that show no variability in 300-year time periods to that of data that shows yearly variability? I stated that to get a true comparison you had to do the work with all the same type of information. You can't compare low resolution proxies to high resolution.
So then I read your link and I had a question about Tamino's work. If a 0.9 degree spike shows up, then does Tamino's work make Marcott's statement wrong about variability in 300-year time periods? If so, how come Marcott didn't use Tamino's method?
Do you just cut n' paste directly from the 'WattsUpWithThat' site, are you a contributor there, or what? That seems to be where you get your esoteric talking points involving Marcott and Tamino.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35037
Apr 10, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you just cut n' paste directly from the 'WattsUpWithThat' site, are you a contributor there, or what? That seems to be where you get your esoteric talking points involving Marcott and Tamino.
You guys are so funny. Do you even see the irony in your post? FairGame copies and pastes Tamino's blog and uses that as his talking point. Then when I have a question about the blog post, I get slammed and you all avoid the question and instead and just smear me and tell me how I'm so anti-science.

Space Blues who gets his panites in a wad when I call him dense said this: This 'new' crssty is as flakey as the past one(s). Despite its claims of "always" blah blah. Wow. Like I said, the new crssty is flakey. Without science, it looks at words. No one can take it out of its stuckiness. So hilarious to observe! I just love it!

FairGame said this: You not only believe in a phenomenon for which there is no evidence, you believe in a phenomenon which defies physics. Believing in fairies would be more rational. But anything is better than having to question your ideology, isn't it? Yada yada. Twisty Kristy.

You said this: You can tell just from that that they don't do or understand science. Scientists are always interested in more and better facts and information. Deniers want to avoid that at all costs.

Such intellectual conversation. You all pat yourselves on the back telling each other how scientific and knowledgeable you are while slamming anyone who has the audacity to question the settled science. And when I post scientists who don't agree with the AGW science, you all slam them too.

So asking a question about Tamino's work is now anti-science and I must take his work at face value. How is that against science? Can someone please tell me his qualifications, his name, does he have any peer-reviewed papers, because I really don't know anything about him.

But seriously, I am asking a question that you all seem to want to avoid, but I'm not asking it to offend anyone. I really want to know if you can find variability in less than 300-year intervals in Marcott's work, as Tamino said, then why did Marcott say you couldn't?

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35038
Apr 10, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are so funny. Do you even see the irony in your post? FairGame copies and pastes Tamino's blog ...EDITED.... his name, does he have any peer-reviewed papers, because I really don't know anything about him.
But seriously, I am asking a question that you all seem to want to avoid, but I'm not asking it to offend anyone. I really want to know if you can find variability in less than 300-year intervals in Marcott's work, as Tamino said, then why did Marcott say you couldn't?
I guess you'd better go elsewhere and ask, then. These minutiae of the warming discussion seem to me the sort of thing we routinely see from Deniers, trying to bog the discussion down in one specific, detailed discussion point as a way of discrediting "experts" they don't want to acknowledge.

Maybe you could tell us ignorant folk why "variability in less than 300-year intervals" is so important to the discussion, Kristy?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35039
Apr 10, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you'd better go elsewhere and ask, then. These minutiae of the warming discussion seem to me the sort of thing we routinely see from Deniers, trying to bog the discussion down in one specific, detailed discussion point as a way of discrediting "experts" they don't want to acknowledge.
Maybe you could tell us ignorant folk why "variability in less than 300-year intervals" is so important to the discussion, Kristy?
Well Tamino seems to think it is. But if you are making a reconstruction of past temperatures and then comparing them to the present, 300 year intervals does make a difference. How can you claim that there was no increased warmth in any of those 300-year intervals compared to today? If you took the last 300 years and stated those individual 300 years had no variability, then you wouldn't be able to see the warming in the 20th century.
Chrichton was correct

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35040
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The only thing "speeding up" is the nonsense of global warming. Isn't it amazing how 1% of the people get away with imposing their will on the uninformed masses? If there is "global warming", it is a natural phenomenon. If there is global cooling, it is a natural phenomenon. Since the Hollywood types, who are not exactly research scientists, are considered experts, those who follow them should read Michael Chrichton's thoughts on this matter. He basically stated that the Earth was here before humankind, it will be here long after humans no longer exist, and the time humans spend on our planet will be a blip. The Earth goes on.... "You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity!" But, of course, the global warming fringe (ooooops, they changed to climate change when too many assertions were disproven) have masterful scientists like Al Gore and Hollywood starlets to help with their message! Chrichton was not a scientist either, he just possessed something that the kooks do not: common sense and an open mind.

Note: if the 1% kook fringe who may try to message me... don't waste your time. You will not change me! Instead, I post wherever possible to encourage the uninformed or misinformed to for their own opinions from good research and literature.

Now... off to Twitter to correct some kooks over there and let 107,000 followers know the truth as well!!
Chrichton was correct

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35041
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh... two more things: there is as much or as much green vegetation on earth now as there was 100 years ago. There may be less forest, but there is just as much green vegetation. Green vegetation, no matter what the form, consumes CO2.

And, I have to toss this in after reading some previous posts. I drive a VERY large truck and always will; I need to for my hunting and fishing trips! Yes, I hunt, I fish, and my contributions for licenses and permits ensures that game animal populations continue to thrive, in spite of junk science that suggests otherwise.

I discovered this post by total accident while surfing Topix, which I rarely look at, for news items from north-central Ohio. A shame I won't see further posts.

Now... back to Twitter!!

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35042
Apr 10, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Tamino seems to think it is. But if you are making a reconstruction of past temperatures and then comparing them to the present, 300 year intervals does make a difference. How can you claim that there was no increased warmth in any of those 300-year intervals compared to today? If you took the last 300 years and stated those individual 300 years had no variability, then you wouldn't be able to see the warming in the 20th century.
The question isn't whether the last 300 years has shown warming, but whether humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of it. In fact the last 150 years in particular, since the onset of the Industrial Age, has shown accelerated warming - which leads to the thought that humans are having an effect.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35043
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Chrichton was correct wrote:
The only thing "speeding up" is the nonsense of global warming. Isn't it amazing how 1% of the people get away with imposing their will on the uninformed masses? If there is "global warming", it is a natural phenomenon. If there is global cooling, it is a natural phenomenon. Since the Hollywood types, who are not exactly research scientists, are considered experts, those who follow them should read Michael Chrichton's thoughts on this matter. He basically stated that the Earth was here before humankind, it will be here long after humans no longer exist, and the time humans spend on our planet will be a blip. The Earth goes on.... "You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity!" But, of course, the global warming fringe (ooooops, they changed to climate change when too many assertions were disproven) have masterful scientists like Al Gore and Hollywood starlets to help with their message! Chrichton was not a scientist either, he just possessed something that the kooks do not: common sense and an open mind.
Note: if the 1% kook fringe who may try to message me... don't waste your time. You will not change me! Instead, I post wherever possible to encourage the uninformed or misinformed to for their own opinions from good research and literature.
Now... off to Twitter to correct some kooks over there and let 107,000 followers know the truth as well!!
Crichton (CORRECT spelling - LOL) was a writer with some interest in science. He wasn't a climate scientist and turned into a Denier at the end of his life, much to his discredit.

Kooks like you think only in terms of celebrities like Crichton or Gore, and don't give a damn about real science. You're a joke.

Dismissed.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35044
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chrichton was correct wrote:
Oh... two more things: there is as much or as much green vegetation on earth now as there was 100 years ago. There may be less forest, but there is just as much green vegetation. Green vegetation, no matter what the form, consumes CO2.
And, I have to toss this in after reading some previous posts. I drive a VERY large truck and always will; I need to for my hunting and fishing trips! Yes, I hunt, I fish, and my contributions for licenses and permits ensures that game animal populations continue to thrive, in spite of junk science that suggests otherwise.
I discovered this post by total accident while surfing Topix, which I rarely look at, for news items from north-central Ohio. A shame I won't see further posts.
Now... back to Twitter!!
Exactly as I posted, you take your position not driven by science but the desire to keep driving that big truck without feeling guilty about it. You might be reminded of the science that proved smoking was harmful to your health. In the beginning the tobacco lobby started using smoking doctors in advertising disputing the claims. It took 40 + yrs to have smoking banned almost everywhere now in most developed countries. Unfortunately the climate can't wait that long, so discovering you were wrong in 40 yrs time is way too late.
If you really value your fishing and wilderness then making claims about the planet still being green is debatable. Chopping down trees to clear land for fields of grass for livestock to feed on is not locking in the carbon the way a forest does. The stock eats the grass as fuel and carbon is back into the atmosphere again.
With a forest the carbon is locked into the timber, so while grass can produce oxygen its net effect is nowhere near that of a forest.
If you break that down to households with their own little patch of grass amongst the concrete & bitumen , the mere fact of grooming that grass would wipe any gains of having the grass in the first place. So no, the planet is not as green as it always was.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35045
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The question isn't whether the last 300 years has shown warming, but whether humans are responsible for at least a significant portion of it. In fact the last 150 years in particular, since the onset of the Industrial Age, has shown accelerated warming - which leads to the thought that humans are having an effect.
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.

1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.

This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35047
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly. I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared? For example, when I posted about Dyson's views on global warming and climate models, one of the others on this board was trying to portray him as someone with crazy ideas who doesn't have a grasp on the science of biology. There are many scientists now questioning the Earth's cooling ability and they are saying that the models aren't reliable. So we have far to go in this science, it's really just in its infancy, far from settled.
No, no, no, again no.

Once again you post nonsense and demand debate. You are not qualified for a debate in science. There are posters here who can but you are definitely NOT one of them.

Why don't you just go practise oncology!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35048
Apr 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Seymour Laxon's work led to the first detailed map of the Arctic gravity field.

My friend Seymour Laxon, who has died aged 49 after sustaining a head injury during a fall, was an internationally respected Earth scientist. Seymour used satellites to observe the polar ice caps and the focus of his research was sea ice, a key factor in understanding the global climate since it acts as a barrier to heat and moisture exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere.

Seymour was the only child of Veronica, a psychology lecturer, and Bill, a civil engineer and pioneer of computer-aided design. Inheriting his father's interest in computers, as a teenager Seymour was one of the generation who cut their teeth programming the first home computers in the early 1980s.

He studied physics and astronomy at University College London, where his neat and structured lecture notes showed a clear and well-organised mind at work. It was no surprise when he went on to undertake a PhD at UCL's Mullard Space Science Laboratory in Surrey. There, he met his partner of 19 years Fiona Strawbridge.

Seymour's scientific breakthrough was to distinguish the ice surface from the water surface in satellite radar altimeter measurements of ice-covered oceans. This led to the first detailed map of the Arctic gravity field, revealing new tectonic features beneath the seafloor, and water circulation beneath the ice. His work helped give the European Space Agency the confidence to build CryoSat, a satellite dedicated to observing the Earth's ice-covered regions, launched in 2010.

Seymour taught at UCL's department of space and climate physics, before moving to the department of Earth sciences, where he was director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling. He was awarded his chair in climate physics in 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/fe...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 33,061 - 33,080 of45,761
|
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.

27 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 1,078,384
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr FACT 67,856
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr andet1987 4,543
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 455
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL COOL DUDE 68,357
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 174,457
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Mister Tonka 97,511
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 22 at 8:55PM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••