Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63569 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.

SpaceBlues

United States

#38031 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Who's hiding the daily man-made emissions of 90 million tons? What havoc are they creating?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38032 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, just a few posts up you were all like we need to do is unite, have faith, love, educate and then you go and say a bigoted statement like that?
and it's about people in his own state. The self loathers hate their fellow man just as much as themselves. They use words like " unite", but it means little if anything to them.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38033 Aug 16, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct! pre 9/11 and pre GFC 2008 climate was very much on the radar of both parties, almost in sync. But as soon as the bills started coming in post IRAQ & GFC the climate message was suddenly another unnecessary expense we can all do without. Then suddenly climate science became a target like taxes with the right. Both of which we can't survive without. Yet read Kristy's posts, straight out of Fox/ Rush copy book, "unnecessary" red tape holding back business. I have never heard such crap in all my life. This is what Reagan did in the 80's remember got rid of the red tape so business can flourish. Well flourish it did, built a house of straw on fraud, exactly the same as what the deniers are doing now.
Lack of regulation and lowered taxes has saved all kinds of money for some groups, but has cost the nation dearly and has the potential to cost even more.

Deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts has resulted in fewer FDA inspectors, fewer border agents, poison dog food, poisoned baby formula, lead coated toys, oil spills, Wall Street boondoggles, an increase in the homeless, increases in food stamp applications, inadequate inspection of imported shipping containers, reduced services at national parks, fewer inspections of any kind, and the list grows daily. The push now, after Republicans and Congress have spent money like drunken sailors for the past decade, is to make the "shiftless poor" and struggling middle class pay for their "undeserved" entitlements (like SS and Medicare, which we have all paid for and are entitled to).

Mr. Ray-gun's trickle down economics have the distinct smell of urine. i. e., "piss on them."

In today's radical right wing Republicant party, mitigating climate change is "voodoo economics" and keeping earth-observing satellites up is a waste of taxpayer money.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38034 Aug 16, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
As our friend Pvt. Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Another huge denier lie.

They require better than crystal ball accuracy before conceding a millimeter, but the predictions have been close enough, even too conservative at times, to give normal people a good idea of what's happening.

I have understated the situation, on pain of being labeled an "alarmist".
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38035 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.
The well-known Dunning-Kruger effect.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38036 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The latest I have heard is that there seems to be a relationship between colony collapse and herbicides. Don't remember the source.
Yes, but nothing occurs in a vacuum. There are so many stresses, it's hard to count them all. Global warming and mites have been strongly implicated as well.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38037 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but nothing occurs in a vacuum. There are so many stresses, it's hard to count them all. Global warming and mites have been strongly implicated as well.
I meant to say fungicides, not herbicides.

http://sfist.com/2013/07/26/new_study_suggest...
Mothra

United States

#38038 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts has resulted in fewer FDA inspectors, fewer border agents, poison dog food, poisoned baby formula, lead coated toys, oil spills, Wall Street boondoggles, an increase in the homeless, increases in food stamp applications, inadequate inspection of imported shipping containers, reduced services at national parks, fewer inspections of any kind, and the list grows daily....
Boy, you've really piled up a massive amount of manure here.

Please offer evidence that all of the above occurred BECAUSE of "deregulation, defunding, and tax cuts".
Mothra

United States

#38039 Aug 16, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
THIS is what I'm talking about:

Quick post about failed Global Warming predictions

http://anthonyvioli.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38040 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. They made the science into a government/political agenda. Had nothing to do with republicans.
INTER-Government (science) panelll on Climate change. They made it into a science organization outside of the internal govenrment policies. Has nothing to do with any of your bullshit.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38041 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The latest I have heard is that there seems to be a relationship between colony collapse and herbicides. Don't remember the source.
Probably news on the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides currently #1 on the suspect list. tinyurl.com/lgn6sph

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38042 Aug 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
INTER-Government (science) panelll on Climate change. They made it into a science organization outside of the internal govenrment policies. Has nothing to do with any of your bullshit.
how do you think the organization is funded?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38043 Aug 16, 2013
Denier statement: Scientists can't explain the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming.

BUT! If you explore the science literature, you find this little gem from 2007, making a prediction for the decade 2004-2014:

"Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004.“Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.

Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.”(Roger Highfield, Science Editor,“Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy,“Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)"

That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38044 Aug 16, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
Try going to this site to see the relationship between predictions and actual events.
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
Ok I went to the site and did what you told me. This paper actually proved that the AGW hypothesis has failed.

1. The paper states this: Carbon emissions are not only still growing, they're growing faster than ever, and the outcome is even worse than scientists expected. That's mainly because the scientific models underestimated the amount of carbon gas the world would be producing by now.

(So now we are not using the business as usual predictions, we are at worst-case scenario emission, thus pushing the temperature increase to the highest prediction. Faster than ever rise in CO2 concentrations and no warming for 15 years.)

2. The paper states: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] warns that the planet is warming faster than previously predicted…..[The impacts of climate change]‘seem to be occurring faster than we projected just five or 10 years ago.

(Climate experts from both sides were asked in congressional testimony if temperatures were warming faster than previously anticipated 5 years ago, and none of them said that was true.)

3. The paper states: Ice free Arctic forecasts revised to nearer term event instead of previous projections for 2050 and 2070.“Recent satellite data from the U.S. Space agency NASA indicate that sea ice in the Arctic and Greenland is melting at a faster rate than previously projected. VOA's Paul Sisco has the story. Climate scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, outside Washington, say the Arctic Ocean could be mostly ice free in late summer 2013.

(Arctic summer 2013, shortest summer on record)

4. The paper states: The Bolivian Chacaltaya glacier forecast to disappear in 2020 disappeared in 2009-2010.“The glaciers that ring the [Bolivian] cities [of La Paz and El Alto] have essentially provided natural low-maintenance storage, collecting water in the short rainy season and releasing it for water and electricity in the long dry one. With warmer temperatures and changing rainfall, they no longer do so.

(They give one example of a glacier disappearing, but fail to report that they overestimated the Himalaya glacier melts by 30% and that the Himalayas are doing better than predicted)

5. The paper states: Massive wildfires that have become increasingly common in recent years are a flash point for climate change. Wildfires emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, increasing the rate of global warming. That warming then increases the number and severity of wildfires.

(Since they don't link to any data to prove that wildfires are increasing, I provided a link to the US wildfires....no such trend. http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm )

6. The paper says this about rising sea level: But, according to [physicist Jianli Chen] and his Texas team, the melting of Greenland's ice cap is already raising global sea levels by six-tenths of a millimeter each year.

(Can someone provide proof of this statement?)

Bottom line, the AGW hypothesis is that as CO2 rises, temperatures will increase. This paper states that CO2 levels are at the worst case scenario so we should be seeing the highest temperature increases predicted. The hypothesis has failed.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38045 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the global governance? When do you think the US government will accede to that? Who would have to do that?
Whose wealth will be transferred? Private? Public? If wealth is transferred to Africa, will that not mean business opportunities for Western businesses there? With the wealth of natural resources already in Africa, do you not think money transfer to countries in that continent won't result in more business?
Kyoto has turned out to be so weak, I can't understand the fear of it. That's why I think you're paranoid.
I've already gone through all of this about 2 weeks ago. You are more than welcome to go back and read my previous posts. I have linked where the money comes from, who controls the money and what is done with the money and how this system keeps Africa in perpetual poverty. If you choose not to read what I post, then don't come back and call me paranoid. I posted all the facts very straightforward.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38046 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
There was no political element until deniers started opposing climate science.
What year was that?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38047 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand now. Because of uncertainties you are certain that CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Uhhhh...no. I have never said that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming, it's just there is no proof it is the main driver, like 90%, as per the IPCC.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38048 Aug 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
INTER-Government (science) panelll on Climate change. They made it into a science organization outside of the internal govenrment policies. Has nothing to do with any of your bullshit.
LMAO.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38049 Aug 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
evidence
Here's some thoughts. Let's see if we can find more!
The Deregulation Playbook
Once these anti-regulatory ideologues and industry representatives were in place, they were free to begin to impede the regulatory process and to undermine regulations passed by Congress. The specific tactics varied & included:
Stalling. Agency personnel routinely and systematically delayed in formulating and issuing regulations mandated by law. For example, even though the Bush administration promised to act quickly to devise urgently needed rules to protect the right whale from extinction, it took the maximum time allowed by law, then refused to issue the rule, in violation of the law, for an additional 453 days.
Cutting Their Own Budgets. Remarkably, Bush appointees routinely tried to cut the budgets of their own agencies – making it more difficult for them to do their job. The budget for mine safety inspections, for instance, went from $139 million in 2001 to $118 million in 2006.
Inactivity. Administrators simply ignored emerging problems. In the area of workplace safety, despite evidence of a number of threats to Americans on the job, the Bush Occupational Safety and Health Administration largely sat on its hands during its entire tenure, issuing only one significant new regulation in eight years. Also, for years, Bush environmental officials refused to admit that global warming was a serious issue that merited immediate action.
Reducing Enforcement. Regulations are only effective if they are enforced vigorously. Bush appointees routinely worked to weaken enforcement. For example, they cut the civil penalties that polluters had to pay by half, weakening the incentives to comply with environmental protection rules. Another example was the reduction of inspectors and inspections in areas like food safety and mine safety. In 2003, the FDA conducted over 11,000 inspections a year for food safety, a figure that fell to 6,000 by 2007.
“Relaxing” Rules. Bush officials would look for opportunities to create exceptions or loopholes to rules so that various businesses could escape regulation. For example, they relaxed nationwide permit rules so coal companies, developers, and others could fill in thousands of streams, swamps, and other wetlands, without public notice or comment.
Listening Only to Industry. Many Bush appointees met routinely with business lobbyists interested in deregulation, but met only rarely or never with representatives of public interest groups. For example, Dick Cheney and other officials on the Energy Task Force met dozens of times with business leaders from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries. Only one meeting was held for environmental groups; it lasted just one hour and much of that was taken up with introductions of the participants.
Refusing to Fill Appointments. Bush often took an inordinate amount of time filling high-level management vacancies in agencies he didn’t like. This left these agencies adrift, often run by temporary appointments who tended to not be very aggressive in pursuing the mandate of these organizations.
Ignoring Expert Advice. When research produced results that the Bush administration did not like, administration officials often ignored it and refused to act on it. A particularly egregious example was the suppression of scientific research about the seriousness of global warming and the attempt to gag administration scientists who tried to speak out on this issue.
Embracing “Voluntary” Regulation. Abandoning aggressive approaches to regulatory enforcement, the Bush administration favored “voluntary” compliance schemes which often had little effect. The SEC, for instance, relied heavily on voluntary regulation of financial institutions. After the financial meltdown in 2008, the Chairman of the SEC admitted that this approach was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning … because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily."
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38050 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Denier statement: Scientists can't explain the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming.
BUT! If you explore the science literature, you find this little gem from 2007, making a prediction for the decade 2004-2014:
"Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004.“Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.
Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.”(Roger Highfield, Science Editor,“Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy,“Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)"
That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
OMG....When will you all learn to read the disclaimers.

MET office has already revised this, here is their new forecast:

The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. It now believes that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels.

Disclaimer: None of these projections really mean anything because of all the uncertainties we just don’t understand. We can't even forecast 10 years out without revising.

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) 3 min No Surprize 1,509,135
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 39 min District 1 239,566
Obama has LEAK under sink. 6 hr TroyTheRealPlumber 39
Graduation in Detroit. 6 hr Beyond Stoooopid 3
The Scoop on Weiner. 6 hr Weiners A weiner 4
Local Politics Do you approve of Michael Madigan as ? 6 hr HANG MADIGAN 3
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,068

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages