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

Full story: Newsday 46,642
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37429 Jul 25, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>not everyone here has an agenda, ya big government libwhack.
address the points, son, don't attack the messenger.
brian g speaks honesty and truth. your crowd speaks with forked tongue and something that has nothing to do with climate mitigation.
learn the facts!! claiming you have them only solidifies the fact that you don't know what facts are.
NONRESPONSIVE.

Learn the facts. Your posts are baseless.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37430 Jul 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:

Are you sure about that?
No, he's not.

This is the first time he actually inched up to make a claim on his own instead of supporting b_gone.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37431 Jul 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure about that?
more sure than you are about your predictions i bet.

i'm sure that no one will notice an uptick in global warming tomorrow....but you'll swear it happened.:-)

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37432 Jul 25, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>NONRESPONSIVE.
Learn the facts. Your posts are baseless.
you can't prove that!!!

nah nah na na nahhhhh.

your post is 'factless'

heeheehee

political hack!!!!!!!

bwaaaahahahahahahahaahaaa

go back to school and finish your degree, son.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37433 Jul 25, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No, he's not.
This is the first time he actually inched up to make a claim on his own instead of supporting b_gone.
can you prove that? based on your global hoax claims and this post.....you're still batting .000

so sad, too bad.

a loser liberal who thinks he knows something but knows nothing.

say...is that why your posts are so stupid???

are you BAKING???? duh....

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37434 Jul 25, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No, he's not.
This is the first time he actually inched up to make a claim on his own instead of supporting b_gone.
you're brian g's slave bytch.

i support brian g;s ownership of 'ewe'.

brian g makes mayo on your back.....and you secretly love it.

what a transparent self hater you are.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#37435 Jul 25, 2013
man up climate slaves.

it isn't even on the liberals top 30 list.

you're like forgotten colonists on a deserted isle.

pray it doesn't freeze next decade.

warmth is good!!!!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37436 Jul 26, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe that's a bit of self reflection. In the end it still comes down to credibility and if you were President making decisions that effect the welfare of the whole country & beyond it's borders. Who would you get advice from in making that decision ? Would you listen to the advice from NASA and other leading science agencies around the world or go with the wisdom of someone like Glen Beck!
Interesting….This discussion has been about the 16-year pause in global warming and how that pause was never predicted or projected in the models. I understand though it is really easy to avoid the scientific discussion. All you have to do is say…but, but, look GLENN BECK. So let’s get back on track. First off, who is the president getting scientific advice from? Who is telling him global warming is speeding up faster than ever? If the president wants credibility, he has none when he lies to the people. You are asking me would I listen to advice from NASA and other leading science agencies. Well, how about NOAA? Let’s go back to their State of the Climate report 2008. Here is what they have to say about the pause in warming:

The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (&#8722;0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1).

Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties)(Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

These results show that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capable of reproducing the current slowdown in global temperature rise. Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle (Haigh 2003), may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations. The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts.

So bottom line, NOAA said back in 2008 that a 15-year pause would show that the models are not in line with observations. The MET offfice’s decadal forecast predicted renewed warming after 2010 with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record.

At what point does the climate warmist become skeptical? At what point do you question CO2’s role in the climate?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37437 Jul 26, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, CO2 in itself does not make for extreme weather but it's not about the CO2. CO2 just happens to be the factor in kick starting the dominoes to start falling over. Global warming is ALL about the ocean temps rising, which makes for extreme weather. Raise the ocean temp by as little as 1 deg and that can mean the difference between a cat 3 storm & a cat 5. Melt enough ice at the poles and that changes the currents. It also changes weather patterns dramatically, some areas get flooded and others can get nothing for years. So if you want some predictability in average type weather in your food bowls then unless you want to live like nomads start thinking about how to keep those food bowls productive instead of arguing about the merits of CO2.
You all keep making every weather event an extreme event. When I said don't drink and post, it was mainly referring to this statement:

"I wonder how Florida will fare in the next few years during Hurricane season with all these natural events."

So every hurricane that hits land will now be touted as evidence of global warming. Do you see why it so hard to take you seriously?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37438 Jul 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting….This discussion has been about the 16-year pause in global warming and how that pause was never predicted or projected in the models. I understand though it is really easy to avoid the scientific discussion. All you have to do is say…but, but, look GLENN BECK. So let’s get back on track. First off, who is the president getting scientific advice from? Who is telling him global warming is speeding up faster than ever? If the president wants credibility, he has none when he lies to the people. You are asking me would I listen to advice from NASA and other leading science agencies. Well, how about NOAA? Let’s go back to their State of the Climate report 2008. Here is what they have to say about the pause in warming:
The 10 model simulations (a total of 700 years of simulation) possess 17 nonoverlapping decades with trends in ENSO-adjusted global mean temperature within the uncertainty range of the observed 1999–2008 trend (&#8722;0.05° to 0.05°C decade–1).
Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties)(Collins et al. 2006) are performed for several of the IPCC SRES emissions scenarios (Solomon et al. 2007). Ten of these simulations have a steady long-term rate of warming between 0.15° and 0.25ºC decade–1, close to the expected rate of 0.2ºC decade–1. ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b). Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.
These results show that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capable of reproducing the current slowdown in global temperature rise. Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle (Haigh 2003), may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations. The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts.
So bottom line, NOAA said back in 2008 that a 15-year pause would show that the models are not in line with observations. The MET offfice’s decadal forecast predicted renewed warming after 2010 with about half of the years to 2015 likely to be warmer globally than the current warmest year on record.
At what point does the climate warmist become skeptical? At what point do you question CO2’s role in the climate?
Poor old krusty the clown, still tripping over her big clown feet.

The report you cite is talking about the ENSO adjusted trend.

Is the ENSO adjusted trend flat, krusty.

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37439 Jul 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We've been emitting CO2 with combustion for a million years; nature has adapted to human carbon dioxide emissions by now. Don't stop, you don't want cold turkey.
Perhaps it is time to get serious. Not only does oil pollute the atmosphere when we burn it, the future is beginning to dim.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/peak-oil...

There are several reasons to look to new sources of energy.

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37440 Jul 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well no coal plants allowed anymore and burning of wood is a no/no. So clean energy is the only thing allowed. They really don't have the option for steam power. So in their situation, the dam would be one of the few options left to provide a sufficient amount of power to the continent. But I agree with Coal is King. We should just let them do whatever they want and butt out. There is nothing we can do about the civil wars and corruption. Sending money to them is only perpetuating the system of corruption. Almost nothing gets to the people. So if they want to build a dam, go for it. Who are we to tell them what to do?
That is why the solution is educating the population. When they learn new ways to utilize energy, grow crops, provide new industry, provide clean water, and better sanitation methods, they can progress. Top down energy systems will not help the millions of poor. A big dam will do little or nothing for them.
Retired Farmer

La Fayette, KY

#37441 Jul 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is why the solution is educating the population. When they learn new ways to utilize energy, grow crops, provide new industry, provide clean water, and better sanitation methods, they can progress. Top down energy systems will not help the millions of poor. A big dam will do little or nothing for them.
You are right there. Several years ago a tobacco company sponsored a visit to my area by a party of mid-ranking agriculture ministry officials from Mozambique. A tobacco buyer friend of mine brought them to see me. I rode around with them for a week visiting farms, machinery dealerships, and farm supply stores but nothing I showed them was applicable to their situation. Everything in American farming was too big, too technologically advanced, and too expensive for them to use. Finally, in desperation, I took them to visit an Amish farmer who farmed using late 19th century equipment and tools, but who used good, modern scientific agricultural methods. The Africans were all smiles. Everything that the Amish farmer showed them was simple and low cost enough for them to introduce it into the rural villages, but would greatly boost their food production and improve living conditions.

Interestingly, one of the things that the Amish made for them and they took back to Africa was a solar cooker that could be made locally from readily available materials. It cooked slowly, the same way that a crockpot does, but used the sun's energy to supply the heat.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#37442 Jul 26, 2013
cavemonkey wrote:
But "thermal pollutant" is gaining ground.
As in "CO2 as a thermal pollutant."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#37443 Jul 26, 2013
FugYou wrote:
Is the ENSO adjusted trend flat, krusty.
Wot, no question mark?
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#37444 Jul 26, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right there. Several years ago a tobacco company sponsored a visit to my area by a party of mid-ranking agriculture ministry officials from Mozambique. A tobacco buyer friend of mine brought them to see me. I rode around with them for a week visiting farms, machinery dealerships, and farm supply stores but nothing I showed them was applicable to their situation. Everything in American farming was too big, too technologically advanced, and too expensive for them to use. Finally, in desperation, I took them to visit an Amish farmer who farmed using late 19th century equipment and tools, but who used good, modern scientific agricultural methods. The Africans were all smiles. Everything that the Amish farmer showed them was simple and low cost enough for them to introduce it into the rural villages, but would greatly boost their food production and improve living conditions.
Interestingly, one of the things that the Amish made for them and they took back to Africa was a solar cooker that could be made locally from readily available materials. It cooked slowly, the same way that a crockpot does, but used the sun's energy to supply the heat.
Interesting
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37445 Jul 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor old krusty the clown, still tripping over her big clown feet.
The report you cite is talking about the ENSO adjusted trend.
Is the ENSO adjusted trend flat, krusty.
Yes. Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al.(2008). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008
is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed
trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted"
trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

You can read it here pages 22 and 23.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-s...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37446 Jul 26, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right there. Several years ago a tobacco company sponsored a visit to my area by a party of mid-ranking agriculture ministry officials from Mozambique. A tobacco buyer friend of mine brought them to see me. I rode around with them for a week visiting farms, machinery dealerships, and farm supply stores but nothing I showed them was applicable to their situation. Everything in American farming was too big, too technologically advanced, and too expensive for them to use. Finally, in desperation, I took them to visit an Amish farmer who farmed using late 19th century equipment and tools, but who used good, modern scientific agricultural methods. The Africans were all smiles. Everything that the Amish farmer showed them was simple and low cost enough for them to introduce it into the rural villages, but would greatly boost their food production and improve living conditions.
Interestingly, one of the things that the Amish made for them and they took back to Africa was a solar cooker that could be made locally from readily available materials. It cooked slowly, the same way that a crockpot does, but used the sun's energy to supply the heat.
I do agree with you on this. The other day we were posting about aid being sent to Africa and that most of it never gets to those who really need it and I also posted about the World Bank supporting the Inga Dam. I am reading a book called the Creature from Jekyll Island, and it is an eyeopener. The Creature is the Federal Reserve, which I never have fully understood, but have known it is not a good entity and the book explains how it is a cartel of banks in co-hoots with the government. But there is a chapter on the IMF and World Bank, which is essentially the Federal Reserve globally. It is truly sickening how much money has been funneled from the developing countries through the IMF and World Bank to developing countries' governments. It is in the trillions of dollars. Every politician has supported this from Reagan to Obama. The only people who are helped by these cartels are the banks and governments. Even if corrupt governments have been shown to not use the money on their people and even when they default on the loan, the World Bank will come through, restructure the loan, give out a new loan interest delayed so that they can keep the interest payments going to the banks. This cycle literally never stops. If any politician tries to stop this sickening cycle, then they are called out for hating the poor. The help has got to come from the bottom in these types of situations. It seems a tobacco company helped fund this expedition. I hope the Africans were able to take back what they learned and apply it to their situation.
Retired Farmer

La Fayette, KY

#37447 Jul 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with you on this. The other day we were posting about aid being sent to Africa and that most of it never gets to those who really need it and I also posted about the World Bank supporting the Inga Dam. I am reading a book called the Creature from Jekyll Island, and it is an eyeopener. The Creature is the Federal Reserve, which I never have fully understood, but have known it is not a good entity and the book explains how it is a cartel of banks in co-hoots with the government. But there is a chapter on the IMF and World Bank, which is essentially the Federal Reserve globally. It is truly sickening how much money has been funneled from the developing countries through the IMF and World Bank to developing countries' governments. It is in the trillions of dollars. Every politician has supported this from Reagan to Obama. The only people who are helped by these cartels are the banks and governments. Even if corrupt governments have been shown to not use the money on their people and even when they default on the loan, the World Bank will come through, restructure the loan, give out a new loan interest delayed so that they can keep the interest payments going to the banks. This cycle literally never stops. If any politician tries to stop this sickening cycle, then they are called out for hating the poor. The help has got to come from the bottom in these types of situations. It seems a tobacco company helped fund this expedition. I hope the Africans were able to take back what they learned and apply it to their situation.
I put about as much faith in, and have the same reaction to, G. Edward Griffin and his works as I do a pile of squittery chicken shit that I step in crossing the barnyard.

The man is an absolute nutcase. I can think of only a few frauds and quacks that are worse. John Hagee, maybe. Or the swindler that predicted the end of the world a few years ago, what was his name? Harold Camping, I think.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#37448 Jul 26, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
I put about as much faith in, and have the same reaction to, G. Edward Griffin and his works as I do a pile of squittery chicken shit that I step in crossing the barnyard.
The man is an absolute nutcase. I can think of only a few frauds and quacks that are worse. John Hagee, maybe. Or the swindler that predicted the end of the world a few years ago, what was his name? Harold Camping, I think.
Ms. Kristy and Mr. Farmer,
I agree with you guys regarding these international banking schemes that are created ostensibly to help the poor. It does appear that aid is structured to benefit those who administer the funds i.e. the banks. Each of you eloquently described an example of such conduct and there are many other programs like them.

So readers may wonder how this relates to the claim;t GW was slow but is now speeding up? Well I believe the aforementioned principles that have corrupted honorable efforts to help the poor are influencing the efforts of people concerned about Carbon Driven Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption. I suspect most reasonable people also could find evidence of such influences.

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) 6 min RealDave 1,109,760
Word (Dec '08) 16 min boundary painter 4,710
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 19 min LRS 178,027
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 24 min ralph 98,222
Abby 9-16 27 min boundary painter 10
Dear Abby 9-17-14 29 min ralph 17
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 32 min boundary painter 618
Amy 9-16 1 hr Toj 50
•••
•••

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 ]
•••