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
35,121 - 35,140 of 46,239 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37407
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing will ever "make Africa attractive to new businesses". As to the World Bank and "some oversight of the project" the only oversight that ever worked in Africa was European colonial rule. Even then Africa proved to be a bottomless sinkhole. Africa is a hopeless case. Write it off.
I believe you are right.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37408
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Manufacturing jobs for sure. I believe the industrial revolution started with steam power provided by burning wood and coal.
Not sure the crockpot but am sure who is the crackpot.
Give it up. A big dam is not going to fix Africa.
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?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37409
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Does the broad public understand the role of uncertainty in science?

David Gross: The public generally equates uncertainty with a wild guess. Whereas, for a scientist, a theory like the Standard Model is incredibly precise and probabilistic. In science, it is essential never to be totally certain. And that lesson is hammered into every scientist and reader of history. Scientists measure uncertainty using probability theory and statistics. And we have comfort zones when making predictions, error bars. Living with uncertainty is an essential part of science, and it is easily misunderstood.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37410
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Does the narrow field of climate science understand the role of uncertainty?

Of course they are certain about the need to solve a problem that they are uncertain exists. Just ask Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones or James Hansen.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37411
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Does the broad public understand the role of uncertainty in science?
David Gross: The public generally equates uncertainty with a wild guess. Whereas, for a scientist, a theory like the Standard Model is incredibly precise and probabilistic. In science, it is essential never to be totally certain. And that lesson is hammered into every scientist and reader of history. Scientists measure uncertainty using probability theory and statistics. And we have comfort zones when making predictions, error bars. Living with uncertainty is an essential part of science, and it is easily misunderstood.
The problem with climate science is that they tell us there are many uncertainties on our understanding of the climate, but the one thing that is unequivocal is that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures; even though, temperatures have been flat for 16 years and CO2 has been rising and no climate model predicted this.

Here is a headline from 2009: New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niņo southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

The article states: The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study. As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niņo warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ju...

This paper was supposed to silence the skeptics by predicting a 150% increase in temperatures over the next 5 years, but that hasn't happened, so to be fair does that mean this should silence the alarmists?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37412
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with climate science is that they tell us there are many uncertainties on our understanding of the climate, but the one thing that is unequivocal is that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures; even though, temperatures have been flat for 16 years and CO2 has been rising and no climate model predicted this.
Here is a headline from 2009: New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niņo southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.
The article states: The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun's activity increases, leading the planet to heat up SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study. As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niņo warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ju...
This paper was supposed to silence the skeptics by predicting a 150% increase in temperatures over the next 5 years, but that hasn't happened, so to be fair does that mean this should silence the alarmists?
The article you linked to does not even contain the word "Sun" or "solar". Confused?

No one has ever claimed that models would follow reality perfectly. They are meant to be a guide. No one has ever said that warming would be strictly linear.

Try again, if you can.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37413
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The article you linked to does not even contain the word "Sun" or "solar". Confused?
No one has ever claimed that models would follow reality perfectly. They are meant to be a guide. No one has ever said that warming would be strictly linear.
Try again, if you can.
Sorry about that. I think that was a link in the article I was referring to, but here is the actual article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ju...

Not one model predicted a 16 year pause. They expected 5, maybe 10 year pauses, but not 16 and they expected the pauses further out in time. So now scientists are getting together and trying to explain the pause, but at the same time as they are trying to figure what is causing the warming standstill, they want to INSIST that this pause is almost CERTAINLY TEMPORARY and that the consensus among world climatologists is that temperatures will once again begin to rise, likely SOONER THAN LATER.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-british-scientis...

May I remind you what was predicted in 2009:

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niņo warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37414
Jul 24, 2013
 
In other-words Kristy you want to explain the warming once again as a natural event and one we have no influence over. Yet chlorinating drinking water makes perfect sense to you as well as not letting all the waste humans create just pile up in the streets. But somehow unlocking carbon into the atmosphere on a scale that's unprecedented in human history doesn't mean a thing. Not only that, at the same time reducing the planet's ability to lock it up again by land clearing and the like because we must not hold back progress.
I wonder how Florida will fare in the next few years during Hurricane season with all these natural events. It seems to me, if you did have rubbish piling up in front of your house you may be one of those screaming the loudest but because CO2 is invisible they may as well be piling that rubbish up on a barge & towing it to Africa. Out of sight, out of mind!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37415
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
In other-words Kristy you want to explain the warming once again as a natural event and one we have no influence over. Yet chlorinating drinking water makes perfect sense to you as well as not letting all the waste humans create just pile up in the streets. But somehow unlocking carbon into the atmosphere on a scale that's unprecedented in human history doesn't mean a thing. Not only that, at the same time reducing the planet's ability to lock it up again by land clearing and the like because we must not hold back progress.
I wonder how Florida will fare in the next few years during Hurricane season with all these natural events. It seems to me, if you did have rubbish piling up in front of your house you may be one of those screaming the loudest but because CO2 is invisible they may as well be piling that rubbish up on a barge & towing it to Africa. Out of sight, out of mind!
This is what happens when you drink and post. Please don't drink and post!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37416
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

climate change activism is for dullards and losers.

no facts, no truth, no life.

do something with your lives that really matters!!!
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37417
Jul 24, 2013
 
Well, OK, I'm off to the Climate Leaders conference in Chicago tomorrow, doing something else with my life that really matters.

With all the other activists, from about 50 countries and schools like Harvard and UCLA. Not a dullard or loser among them.

You should fly out, ratdownthemuddle, with some of your big investment money; maybe you could wait tables during our breaks!

And if I can get close enough to old Al, I'm going to feel under his hair for those horns you deniers say he has.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37418
Jul 24, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what happens when you drink and post. Please don't drink and post!
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!

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37419
Jul 25, 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!
We know who old Krusty listens to.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37420
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
In other-words Kristy you want to explain the warming once again as a natural event and one we have no influence over. Yet chlorinating drinking water makes perfect sense to you as well as not letting all the waste humans create just pile up in the streets. But somehow unlocking carbon into the atmosphere on a scale that's unprecedented in human history doesn't mean a thing. Not only that, at the same time reducing the planet's ability to lock it up again by land clearing and the like because we must not hold back progress.
I wonder how Florida will fare in the next few years during Hurricane season with all these natural events. It seems to me, if you did have rubbish piling up in front of your house you may be one of those screaming the loudest but because CO2 is invisible they may as well be piling that rubbish up on a barge & towing it to Africa. Out of sight, out of mind!
Garbage bad... CO2 Good.
See, there is the difference in our perspectives.
The Prophets of Climate Crisis claim CO2 is poisonous Garbage.
Reasonable people understand that Life is 'Carbon Based' and CO2 is the first link in this Life's food Chain.

As for the hurricanes... we are past the half way point of the season and where do we stand? More? Stronger?
Or are we experiencing fewer and weaker hurricanes this year? Besides... What's your point for even mentioning such a nonsequitur? Are you suggesting this year's hurricanes (or lack there of) are a result of CCC?

From what I have read there is no scientist that would support the claim that individual extreme weather events are the result of an extra 50 molecules of CO2 in the air.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37422
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37423
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Ninety million tons of manmade heat-trapping CO2 are emitted each day. b_gone lies here because of fossil fuels job.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37424
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
From what I have read there is no scientist that would support the claim that individual extreme weather events are the result of an extra 50 molecules of CO2 in the air.
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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37425
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Ninety million tons of manmade heat-trapping CO2 are emitted each day. b_gone lies here because of fossil fuels job.
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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37426
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
is this your educated argument? okay,okay,okay....i'll play along. warmer temps will mean less severe tornadoes, warmer temps will mean more human progress and world production. warmer temps will allow for better crops in otherwise inhospitable climes.

see???

for every calamity you predict.....there is always a benefit.

change is good....it always offers new opportunities. why are you people so shallow? i don't mean that as disrespectful as it sounds!!

at least...i don't think so....

can any of you....or any scientist (who you claim erroneously are on your side of the debate) tell the forum what man made co2 mitigation will do to turn around ocean temps you're so convinced are going to wreak havoc on the earth?

don't claim to know what you really don't have a clue about, son. it doesn't help your position. the scientists are actually backing off the "possibilities" (there never has been probabilities) because political hacks have hi-jacked the science.

you people do more harm than good. by extension... you are sort of modern day eco-terrorists. you try to drive science to fit your political agenda.

no facts. you know it....but it won't stop you. you people can't help yourselves for myriad reasons. sad!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37427
Jul 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

why do so many people buy into governmental crap? on either side of politics! there is nothing wrong with change in climate. there is no impending doom.

you people had ancestors that paid up for snake oil!!

temp drives co2 levels....not the opposite.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 36 min Yeah 1,096,108
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Whiny1 4,640
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr LRS 176,797
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,633
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 557
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr Ace 49,265
Abby 8-15 2 hr Kuuipo 19
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Toj 97,823

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••