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

Full story: Newsday 46,645
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Freethinker

United States

#35625 May 6, 2013
Likely Voter wrote:
From the article: " The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration."
The hottest year on record was 1934.
How did Seth get to be "AP Science Writer?"
..........the zio-media complex downplays the carbon footprint of the military ........tanks and jets get very bad mileage and are overused .......... the mainstearm media is part of the zio-imperialist fifth column ........ BORN FREE , Free to think .......don't succumb to the Dalsimer Thought Police and the JDL Wolfpacks who stalk OATH KEEPERS in cars with fl tags 243 PIE , 244 PIE , 488 TYD , 668 PCK , J36 4LI , 617 TIH, M95 9ME , GOAMG , LXE 904 , M80 5EU, 625 6AG ......See THE GOLDSTONE REPORT.
Pete Seeger fan

United States

#35626 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny how they will pick and choose the villain. Will they also divest from any technology or company that operates in countries who violate human rights, such as Apple?
.......... BDS from CATERPILLAR , Lockheed Martin , BLACKWATER and the private eye / JDL Stalkers who hate the BILL OF RIGHTS , especially the FIRST AMENDMENT ..........FEAR NO EVIL , Fear no Rhesus Mascari , Marsupial Marshak or PAM GELLER hate speech ..........see THE LAVON AFFAIR , Gatekeepers and BY WAY OF DECEPTION ..........FREE ANAT KAMM ......... Indict Eric Cantor, Peter King and Wolf Blitzer for treason .
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35627 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Noticed when you quoted my post ..
LOL. Your posts are NOT quote worthy.

You lost again, you are a denier of science! Repetition does not change the truth about you.

One of these days, you will also drop off the treads without a concession like your ilk would.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35628 May 6, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
your assignment gives you the opportunity to show the forum just how smart you are. insulting someone else's educational level doesn't help you look smarter. you can answer the questions, no? You put both claims into play after all. You do have the science and math skills to demonstrate how mitigation will make a quantitative impact on climate, right? Or are you just not that bright?
litesong doesn't address the issues, he prefers irrational ad hominem fallacies. Good luck getting him to engage.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35629 May 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. Your posts are NOT quote worthy.
You lost again, you are a denier of science! Repetition does not change the truth about you.
One of these days, you will also drop off the treads without a concession like your ilk would.
I hope you never stop posting...your posts show how you avoid the facts and attack the messenger, as all the facts I posted came from NOAA. By the way, did you let those NOAA scientists have it? Did you tell them how they are deniers and liars?
worried about space

Seattle, WA

#35630 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you never stop posting...your posts show how you avoid the facts and attack the messenger, as all the facts I posted came from NOAA. By the way, did you let those NOAA scientists have it? Did you tell them how they are deniers and liars?
oh my 'kristy', if only we had decent mental health care. we could stop the maddness.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35631 May 6, 2013
krusty the clown wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what I’m saying is that we are told that we will have more “extreme” weather events due to AGW. That is what is told to the public. But yet behind closed doors, the scientists admit that THEY DON’T KNOW. Every one of you on here has said that the UK has experienced “extreme” cold because of the Arctic ice melt, but what was said behind closed doors and what they tell each other it is UNKNOWN if the Arctic sea ice is affecting the jet stream.
The Met office in emails obtained through FOIA also said this about recent droughts in the UK:
"Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts. There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate."
But yet that does not stop these scientists from publically stating that these “extreme” events are due to climate change and then you have people like OzRitz claiming that droughts are happening at a greater frequency because of AGW. So you call me twisty, but I'm not the one saying one thing behind closed doors and then publicly stating something else. That's twisted.
You're still unable to grasp that the analysis of a single event might be different from the analysis of several years of events, demonstrating a laughable incompetence that shows how well you deserve to be called Krusty the clown.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35632 May 6, 2013
worried about space wrote:
<quoted text>oh my 'kristy', if only we had decent mental health care. we could stop the maddness.
I picture spacey in a padded room screaming out DENIER/LIAR over and over.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35633 May 6, 2013
worried about space wrote:
<quoted text>oh my[sic]'kristy', if only we had decent mental health care. we[sic] could stop the maddness.
Yes, you should be worried about your leaky tanks, kal.

I knew you were issuing negative icons behind the curtain because you never have anything to say like the other deniers.

Take care of your leaky tanks, you hear.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35634 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you never stop posting....
LOL.

Go back to high school.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35635 May 6, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still unable to grasp that the analysis of a single event might be different from the analysis of several years of events, demonstrating a laughable incompetence that shows how well you deserve to be called Krusty the clown.
Tell that to everyone who is linking Sandy to AGW.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35636 May 6, 2013
"But if we look at the entire spectrum of rainfall types we see all the models agree in a very fundamental way - projecting more heavy rain, less moderate rain events, and prolonged droughts."
Read more at http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/71450-n...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35637 May 6, 2013
twisty kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to everyone who is linking Sandy to AGW.
What? Anybody listening to the science?

Climate science explains how global warming can make a superstorms like Sandy more destructive in several ways:

Warming-driven sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive. In fact, a recent study found “The sea level on a stretch of the US Atlantic coast that features the cities of New York, Norfolk and Boston is rising up to four times faster than the global average.”
“Owing to higher SSTs [sea surface temperatures] from human activities, the increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding,” as Kevin Trenberth explained to me in a 2011 email about Hurricane Irene. He elaborates on that point for Sandy here and for all superstorms in this article.
“However, because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well,” Trenberth added (see another of his articles here). Relatedly, warming also extends the range of warm SSTs, which can help sustain the strength of a hurricane as it steers on a northerly track into cooler water (much as apparently happened for Irene). September had the second highest global ocean temperatures on record and the Eastern seaboard was 5°F warmer than average (with global warming responsible for about 1°F of that).
The unusual path of the storm — into the heavily populated east coast rather than out to see — was caused by a very strong blocking high pressure system that recent studies have linked to warming. Meteorologist and former Hurricane Hunter Jeff Masters has an excellent analysis of this,“Why did Hurricane Sandy take such an unusual track into New Jersey?“

I have put these in order from most scientific certainty to least. The first two — the impact of sea level rise and increased water vapor — are unequivocal. The third is extremely likely. The fourth is more speculative.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/31/1...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35638 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want people to starve? We have implemented a policy to combat climate change that does nothing to lower emissions and at the same time decreases the food supply and our ability to help those that are starving today.......... It seems your only answer is just to raise the prices of all goods,making it even more difficult for those starving today.
You deniers keep trying to make circular arguments that never address the real issue. It's always some sideline comment that has no relevance. Putting a price on excess carbon emissions into clean air is no different than demanding clean water. Science has taught you by now that if we drink polluted water we die!
We have millions of years of that so called carbon pollution buried in the ground or locked in forests and we start releasing it all into the atmosphere in less than a couple of hundred years. At the same time reducing our planets natural resources by almost 40% to absorb that carbon back that we emit. You deniers keep saying that none of these cold hard facts would make any difference to our environment and even without any science involved plain and simple logic would tell you otherwise.
The idea of pricing carbon was to bring it into the capitalist system so that its traded like any other commodity. But if you only give it a token value then it is useless. Yes it involves pain in the economy but that is only until a new economy based on clean flourishes. Thats how we evolved from the horse n cart days into mechanisation. The blacksmiths, saddle makers, & wagon builders had to evolve into gas station owners, car makers or parts suppliers. It's exactly the same with green energy. Only the plus side vastly outweighs the negatives.
If you really stood hand on heart and swear that you want to base your entire denial process on the fact that science can't tell you that in 2yrs time on this day it will be raining in Washington as reason to dismiss all the other facts is a farce.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#35639 May 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>litesong doesn't address the issues, he prefers irrational ad hominem fallacies. Good luck getting him to engage.
i wouldn't want to engage with that squirrel even in a hazmat suit.
Retired Farmer

Kuttawa, KY

#35640 May 6, 2013
litesong

Everett, WA

#35641 May 6, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]litesong doesn't address the issues......[/QUOTE]

'lyin' brian' issues slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms & 4 alleged & 4 proud threats.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35642 May 6, 2013
Reminder, folks. Carbon dioxide emissions have been altering the climate since the Industrial Revolution, some 200 years ago, though it took us a while to figure that out. NASA scientist James Hansen first warned Congress about the dangers of greenhouse gases in 1988.

But an earlier climate warning came five decades previous, way back in 1938. That’s when Guy Stewart Callendar, an engineer specializing in steam and power generation, published a paper that theorized that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity could have a greenhouse effect. His prescient paper appeared in the quarterly journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#35643 May 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one condemning all the kids and their future to a global climate change and its consequences because you deny all the harm that comes from fossil fuel burning.
Prove it. Show us.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35644 May 7, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>Prove it. Show us.
Do you comprehend the following?

Carbon dioxide emissions have been altering the climate since the Industrial Revolution, some 200 years ago, though it took us a while to figure that out. NASA scientist James Hansen first warned Congress about the dangers of greenhouse gases in 1988.

But an earlier climate warning came five decades previous, way back in 1938. That’s when Guy Stewart Callendar, an engineer specializing in steam and power generation, published a paper that theorized that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity could have a greenhouse effect. His prescient paper appeared in the quarterly journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min wojar 178,035
James Foley Beheading: What They’re Not Telling... 25 min BadDream 2
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Grey Ghost 1,109,989
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Frijoles 69,378
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr Uzi 68,470
Protests Continue After Chicago Police Shoot 3r... 3 hr joey 2
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr Whiny1 4,710
Amy 9-16 5 hr Zap Brannigan 55
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr Toj 98,226
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••