Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63581 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37747 Aug 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Turbo diesels are passing pollution limits in the U.S., but just barely, specially for particulants. For some pollutants, Toyota Prius has one tenth the pollutants of diesels.
Costs for the real mpg champs are expensive. My Hyundai Elantra cost $9000-$10000 LESS than Cruze diesel. Even the nice gasoline powered Eco Cruze cost $5000 more. My cheap Elantra, bad-mouthed for bad mpg, has more options & is averaging 39mpg(high of 43mpg, possibly more to come).
EVs just got to go further. Unknown to most people, the gasoline Chevy Eco Cruze can travel 750miles on a tank of gas. Even my small tanked Elantra can travel nearly 500miles(more in ideal conditions).
I understand, however the Cruze diesel is one of the cleanest diesel engines on the road. BTW, I drive an old 2002 Chevy Cavalier. It has averaged about 29 mpg (34 highway)overall since I bought it. Not too bad and think of all the resources saved over driving an older car.
litesong

Everett, WA

#37748 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
......the Cruze diesel is one of the cleanest diesel engines on the road. BTW, I drive an old 2002 Chevy Cavalier. It has averaged about 29 mpg (34 highway)overall since I bought it. Not too bad and think of all the resources saved over driving an older car.
As stated, auto makers make big bucks being "economical"(Cruze diesel-$26000)--with fewer options & $10,000+ more than my Epsilon Lyrae.

Still have my 1988 Ford Festiva, averaging 46mpg(high-57mpg) on 100%(ethanol-free) gasoline.
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#37749 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you show me the peer reviewed papers that shows AGW false.
AGW is an idea not a theory.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#37750 Aug 9, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW is an idea not a theory.
Are you disagreeing with science because you know no science? That's irrational.

Go ahead and perform some brain surgeries with your ignorance.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37751 Aug 9, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
"In questions of science; the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individuall"
-Galileo Galilei
True but irrelevant. Their is no 'humble individual' with a theory to challenge AGW, and those 1000 'authorities' are authorities mainly because they are providing a steady stream of well researched and published science papers supporting the mainstream science.

The 'lone researcher' replaces the 'mainstream' only if he can show error or a more formidable theory which is NOT the case.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#37752 Aug 9, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW is an idea not a theory.
baloney. It has been given the status of 'theory' by the authorities that can make that determination. The science academies that review and monitor the science for public policy purposes. i.e The NAS.

Which makes it the 'current science' and eligeable to be taught in ALL schools AS the 'established science'.

Whining like a spoiled brat doesn't change that.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37753 Aug 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
49 scientists and astronauts.... Out of 23000 employees. A whopping 0.2%. Exactly how many were climate scientists? Sounds pretty political to me.
Paragraph on this so called letter to NASA.

"On the one hand we have a bunch of former administrators, astronauts, and engineers who between them have zero climate expertise and zero climate science publications.
On the other hand we have the climate scientists at NASA GISS who between them have decades, perhaps even centuries of combined professional climate research experience, and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications.…

This is not a difficult choice for NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. We would not be surprised if he gave the 'skeptic'
letter one look and tossed it in the recycle bin."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/04/13...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37754 Aug 9, 2013
One other point on the NASA letter as well, it was motivated by funding and in house politics about the space program being cut. They figured take it away from the climate boys instead! So it was all about the science.. YEAH I'M SURE IT WAS!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37755 Aug 9, 2013
The only science involved in the NASA letter was one group wanted to save the planet the other wanted to go to Mars.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#37756 Aug 9, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
There may be a so-called "tripping point" that, after it is reached, an environmental collapse will occur like an avalanche. By the time environmental conditions reach the point that we recognize that the collapse has started, it will be too late. The CO2 causing it will already be in the atmosphere.
Not only will the CO2 already be in the atmosphere, the "pipeline" may also be full of more CO2 and methane from decaying permafrost and desertification, clathrate sublimation, etc. and the near surface ocean will be a massive "thermal flywheel" working against us.

And my grandchildren will have the denial industry and their dogmatic denier scum to thank for it.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37757 Aug 9, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What were then names of the scientists who spoke at the conference?
There were three.

If you wanted to know who was going to be there you should have gone!

There were doctors and economists and such. It was a conference. Lots of disciplines were represented.

Are you trying to make something of it?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37758 Aug 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There were three.
If you wanted to know who was going to be there you should have gone!
There were doctors and economists and such. It was a conference. Lots of disciplines were represented.
Are you trying to make something of it?
Disciplines or disciples?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37759 Aug 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you show me the peer reviewed papers that shows AGW false.
But AGW has yet to be proven. You have a theory that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. It is also theorized that CO2 causes an increase in water vapor thus creating more heat. The, sun, according to the AGW theory, has little impact. The clouds and the oceans are the wild cards. It is also theorized that the MWP period was not global, so these temperatures are unprecedented.

Most of you always bring up Galileo to prove that the skeptics are close-minded and anti-science. But we do have a modern-day Galileo, Henrik Svensmark. In an interview with Discover, he was asked this:

In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?

“I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me,“This is something that you should not have done.” That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.”

(By the way, I believe Svensmark will be a key word to alert the Pit Bulls to attack)

There are competing theories and many scientists have written papers suggesting the sun is the main driver. Just because one is accepted by the IPCC and some other scientists, doesn't make it true. Only observations, testing, etc make it true and I believe the next 5 years will be very telling.

There are papers that show us that the world behaves differently than we expect, such as Susan Solomon’s:

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

There are papers that are lowering the climate sensitivity. We have the ocean problem, with the oceans not heating up as expected. With all the wildcards in play and a 16-pause that has the scientists looking for answers, we are far from settled.

There are many papers that show the MWP was global, just a few listed below:

Hemer and Harris (2003)-Amery Ice Shelf-East Antarctica-their study puts the time of maximum Ice Shelf retreat in close proximity to the historical time frame of the Medieval Warm Period.
Khim et al (2002-Bransfield Basin off of northern tip of the Antarctica Peninsula depict presence of LIA and MWP.
Hall et al (2010)–Antarctica Peninsula-the present state of reduced ice on western Antarctica Peninsula is not unprecedented. They found evidence for reduced ice extent from 700-970
Lu et al (2012) Antarctica Peninsula.
Bertler et al (2011) Ross Sea region of Antarctica
Noon et al (2003) Sombre Lake on Signy Island
Castellano et al (2005)
Williams et al (2007)–South Pole Antarctica.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37760 Aug 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you show me the peer reviewed papers that shows AGW false.
Oh and by the way, you don't have to show any peer-reviewed papers on dirty weather, we all know there are none.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37761 Aug 10, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
One other point on the NASA letter as well, it was motivated by funding and in house politics about the space program being cut. They figured take it away from the climate boys instead! So it was all about the science.. YEAH I'M SURE IT WAS!
So former astronauts and employees of NASA benefit how if this was political? They don't receive any funding. You are totally ignoring the fact that Hanson is a political activist inside of NASA. Who gets hurt more if funding is decreased?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37762 Aug 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There were three.
If you wanted to know who was going to be there you should have gone!
There were doctors and economists and such. It was a conference. Lots of disciplines were represented.
Are you trying to make something of it?
No, I was really just curious what scientists spoke. Could you name them?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37763 Aug 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But AGW has yet to be proven. You have a theory that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. It is also theorized that CO2 causes an increase in water vapor thus creating more heat. The, sun, according to the AGW theory, has little impact. The clouds and the oceans are the wild cards. It is also theorized that the MWP period was not global, so these temperatures are unprecedented.
Most of you always bring up Galileo to prove that the skeptics are close-minded and anti-science. But we do have a modern-day Galileo, Henrik Svensmark. In an interview with Discover, he was asked this:
In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?
“I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me,“This is something that you should not have done.” That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.”
(By the way, I believe Svensmark will be a key word to alert the Pit Bulls to attack)
There are competing theories and many scientists have written papers suggesting the sun is the main driver. Just because one is accepted by the IPCC and some other scientists, doesn't make it true. Only observations, testing, etc make it true and I believe the next 5 years will be very telling.
There are papers that show us that the world behaves differently than we expect, such as Susan Solomon’s:
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
...
You are grasping at straws. No one denies that the sun is a factor but studies show that it is not the main driver. Also even if the MWP was worldwide, and that is not a given, how does that prove that CO2 is not the main driver today?

For starters, Peter Laut found errors in the paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis&#8208;Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publicat...

Note:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/...

We have been over this before, but some insist in bring back old stuff even after it has been dismissed repeadedly. This alone is proof that you have nothing upstanding to say.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#37764 Aug 10, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>To a denier:

You are grasping at straws. No one denies that the sun is a factor but studies show that it is not the main driver. Also even if the MWP was worldwide, and that is not a given, how does that prove that CO2 is not the main driver today?
For starters, Peter Laut found errors in the paper and published a paper addressing the corrections. When the errors are removed the conclusions and assumptions of Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis&#8208;Christensen simply do not stand. Solar can not account for modern global warming.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publicat...
Note:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/...
We have been over this before, but some insist in bring back old stuff even after it has been dismissed repeadedly. This alone is proof that you have nothing upstanding to say.
True.

You find - like I do - repeating is not for a healthy brain. Some of these deniers are repeat-prone due to their dementia symptoms. Of course, they are not aware how sick they are.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37765 Aug 10, 2013
Speaking of government subsidies...

The (Kemper County coal gasification) project is estimated to cost $2.4 billion - the cost excludes AFUDC and includes incentives. Mississippi Power has received a $270 million grant from the Department of Energy for the project (CCPI Phase 2) and $133 million in investment tax credits approved by the Internal Revenue Service.

April 3 2013: Southern Company announced that it has withdrawn it's application for a federal loan guarantee for the power plant its subsidiary Mississippi Power is building in Kemper County. Southern says that Mississippi Power can borrow money elsewhere at a lower rate than available under the loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, cutting the costs of the plant.

July 1, 2013: Mississippi Power Co. announced that the cost is increasing at least another $160 million during the building of the Kemper County Power plant.-MIT

Start-up date has been postponed into 2014. We'll see if it even opens.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37766 Aug 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
gcaveman even admitted it sounded religious.
The Earth is warming.
It's real.
It's happening.
It's us.
We can do something about it.
Just returned from the Climate Reality Project Leadership training in Chicago last week. The above is our mantra. Call it religion, if you want.
Call it religion, if you want. Is what I said.

You guys already have. How can I stop you? Might as well go along with it.

Maybe from now on I will refer to the Prophet Gore or the Prophet Hanson. Maybe write about the Great Teacher Mann or the priest Trenberth. Maybe instead of listing scientific papers, I will just say "It is written" or "according to scripture."

That makes you deniers the atheists of the AGW movement. And everyone knows atheists are immoral, unethical, and damned.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 32 min Grey Ghost 1,509,846
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 40 min Orange County Coast 239,608
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr SweLL GirL 10,504
Obama has LEAK under sink. 6 hr Troy the true Plu... 41
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Dudley 8,077
White country boys know how to shoot! 9 hr Ashole Bahboon 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr CrunchyBacon 105,065

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages