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

Full story: Newsday 47,478
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

#37509 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:
Again, could you please post the information you have on the ENSO-ADJUSTED temperatures for the last 15 years. You posted the NOAA adjusted and unadjusted temperatures. NOAA's adjusted temperatures take these 5 factors into account:
1. Time of observation.
2. Change in maximum/minimum thermometers used.
3. Changes in station siting.
4. Filling in missing data from individual station records.
5. UHI effects.
Nothing about adjusting for ENSO.
NOAA used the the Method of Thompson to come up with Enso-Adjusted temperatures in the 2008 State of Climate Report I posted. As you obviously have that information available to you, again I ask could you please post it.
Who cares!

Your interest is strictly nontopical here. Do you support ninety million tons of daily man-made emissions into our atmosphere?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#37510 Jul 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Who cares! Your interest is strictly nontopical here. Do you support ninety million tons of daily man-made emissions into our atmosphere?
We exhale CO2 too, don't forget to add that in.

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37511 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Focus, focus, focus....let's stay on topic and get away from the histrionics.
You asked this: "What caused the illegals in the country? We cannot blame the impoverished folks from Mexico. They just want to provide for themselves. The problem has been those who knowingly hire them because they can exploit them for profit. Otherwise we could have brought them across in a legal manner."
I was only stating that couldn't there be other reasons for the Mexicans to cross the border, like sanctuary cities offering handouts? I made no mention of wanting people to suffer. It was just an observation. When a Mexican crosses the border, they know exactly what they are getting into. The companies can't exploit someone who willingly breaks the law to come here knowing they will get low pay. So why are they leaving Mexico if our wages are so crappy? Is it because they have lower wages in Mexico? Is it because the Mexican government is so corrupt that it is unable to take care of its own? Is it because the standard of living is so low in Mexico, that coming to America is an upgrade? But anyway, per your logic, companies who DON'T hire illegals are the ones who want to see people suffer. If a company doesn't hire an illegal, they are just COLD, depriving an illegal money to help their families in crappy Mexico.
That is the reason they are here, because someone wants them here. Otherwise the borders would be sealed.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37512 Jul 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We exhale CO2 too, don't forget to add that in.
Why?

Since: Mar 09

Penrose, CO

#37513 Jul 29, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Land has zero value until it is made productive. It does not even have potential value until it is made accessible to the markets. The railroads made the worthless land of the American West accessible. The railroads, not the government, gave it potential value. The settlers who bought it from the railroads gave it real value when the made it productive. The settlers who got the adjacent free land from the government under the Homestead Act got a free ride from the railroads and the settlers who bought their land.
The government also made low interest loans to them because the RR's could not get enough capital to lay the track.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37514 Jul 29, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Land has zero value until it is made productive. It does not even have potential value until it is made accessible to the markets. The railroads made the worthless land of the American West accessible. The railroads, not the government, gave it potential value. The settlers who bought it from the railroads gave it real value when the made it productive. The settlers who got the adjacent free land from the government under the Homestead Act got a free ride from the railroads and the settlers who bought their land.
You mean "valuable" only in the capitalist sense, I assume. Land with trees, vegetation, natural beauty, and native peoples on it obviously isn't "worthless."

Settlement of the West has ruined large parts of it, thank goodness that leaders like Teddy Roosevelt put aside large tracts to be free from capitalist "development" that would've destroyed it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#37515 Jul 29, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Land has zero value until it is made productive.
total nonsense. Land ALWAYS has a 'real value' of potential use. Giving it away was a REAL giveaway. And led to the massive profits of the Rockefeller's, etc. Not to mention the anti-trust laws that were necessary to get the government back in control after they gave away so much to a small cadre of entitled elite. That is one danger of government help. They may make a bunch of sociopaths powerful and without retraint. It probably was a major factor in WW2 as well (half the german war supplies came from these guys. Did they care? Nope. They were backing germany to ensure that labor unions couldn't form. They got their wish. No labor unions in the prison camps and slave pits of the third reich.. but they lost in the US (where they were also active).

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37516 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, could you please post the information you have on the ENSO-ADJUSTED temperatures for the last 15 years. You posted the NOAA adjusted and unadjusted temperatures.
Yes, ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37517 Jul 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
This is like pulling teeth. Your graph means nothing unless you provide the method used for the adjustments. Can you post the link to the NOAA site that explains the methodology? Is this the Thompson method?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37519 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is like pulling teeth. Your graph means nothing unless you provide the method used for the adjustments. Can you post the link to the NOAA site that explains the methodology? Is this the Thompson method?
Sorry Krusty,*you* made the mistake in confusing unadjusted and ENSO-adjusted temperatures. If you want to argue that ENSO-adjusted temperatures have been flat for 15 years, the onus is on *you* to do that. I've shown you a graph to show that they are not: there's a positive trend in ENSO-adjysted temperatures for that period.
gcaveman1

Glendale Heights, IL

#37520 Jul 29, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>As in "CO2 as a thermal pollutant."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Yes, not just in water, but it's beginning to be seen as a thermal pollutant for its effect on the air.

How do you feel about the post about Spain taxing solar collection? Will we see you protesting in the streets of Madrid soon?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37521 Jul 29, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "valuable" only in the capitalist sense, I assume. Land with trees, vegetation, natural beauty, and native peoples on it obviously isn't "worthless."
Settlement of the West has ruined large parts of it, thank goodness that leaders like Teddy Roosevelt put aside large tracts to be free from capitalist "development" that would've destroyed it.
I'm glad you see the real value in landscape lies in what is on top of the ground rather than what is underneath. That is another mindset that needs changing in the right of politics.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37522 Jul 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Krusty,*you* made the mistake in confusing unadjusted and ENSO-adjusted temperatures. If you want to argue that ENSO-adjusted temperatures have been flat for 15 years, the onus is on *you* to do that. I've shown you a graph to show that they are not: there's a positive trend in ENSO-adjysted temperatures for that period.
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37523 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
Nonsense.

Your ignorance is ahowing. First, tell us about your preferred methodology.

And compare it quantitatively against the alternatives w.r.t. relevance and significance to the raging man-made climate change.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37524 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
Puzzled by what you intend with your phrase "..warming would resume after 2008."

Is it your contention that because an overall upward trend is interrupted by a brief downward turn or two, it's no longer an upward trend?

That really seems more like contentiousness than debate.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37525 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph?
No, I looked for adjusted temperatures and found the graph.

Where's yours?

*you* made the claim,*you* back it up.

I'm not going to do your work for you.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37526 Jul 30, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Puzzled by what you intend with your phrase "..warming would resume after 2008."
Is it your contention that because an overall upward trend is interrupted by a brief downward turn or two, it's no longer an upward trend?
That really seems more like contentiousness than debate.
Yes, that phrase does seem more like contentiousness rather than debate doesn't it? NOAA said this in their 2008 State of the Climate Report after discussing the pause in warming:

"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 if you have a problem with the statement I posted, take it up with NOAA, please. More debate would be nice rather than contentiousness.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37527 Jul 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I looked for adjusted temperatures and found the graph.
Where's yours?
*you* made the claim,*you* back it up.
I'm not going to do your work for you.
You found the graph of a blogger playing around with ENSO-adjusted temperatures and solar and volcanic adjusted temperatures. Would any scientific institution use any of those graphs as proof of anything? It really doesn't matter anyway according to NOAA, because NOAA claimed in the 2008 State of the Climate Report that all this discussion was moot anyway because global temperatures would begin to rise again after 2008.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/06/adjusti...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37528 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You found the graph of a blogger playing around with ENSO-adjusted temperatures and solar and volcanic adjusted temperatures. Would any scientific institution use any of those graphs as proof of anything? It really doesn't matter anyway according to NOAA, because NOAA claimed in the 2008 State of the Climate Report that all this discussion was moot anyway because global temperatures would begin to rise again after 2008.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/06/adjusti...
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

If there are no figures for ENSO-adjusted temperatures up to the present, then you can't claim that there is a 15 year flat period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.

Of course Nick Stokes is a competent scientist and has dome the analysis and his results show a significant trend over the period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.

If you don't want to accept his results, you'll have to wait for NOAA to update their results.

Or accept the more recent research that BS posted that says 15 years periods in the adjusted temperatures are predicted by the models.

Either way you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#37529 Jul 30, 2013
ol kinky coal wrote:
Land has zero value until it is made productive. It does not even have potential value until it is made accessible to the markets. The railroads made the worthless land of the American West accessible.
Excellent example of euro & transplanted euro thinking.....land that supported 100 million Native Tribal members was worth nothing...... until less than worthless, & diseased(both in body & mind) euros & transplanted euros killed off the Native Tribes & changed & polluted the land........ oh, then it gets value.

Yeah, only the values of euros & transplanted euros mean anything...... suppression at its best!

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 10 min Frijoles 69,969
Do you find smoking attractive? (No posts about... 44 min Girly girl 4
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr John Galt 1,124,814
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr wojar 179,264
Chicago a model city 3 hr Just me 6
Father Of Hans Peterson Speaks Out (Oct '07) 4 hr Getagrip 44
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr Boy G 50,587
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]