Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62898 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.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38051 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?

No, I really should be cutting the grass.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38052 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?
No, I really should be cutting the grass.
dont you use goats for that?
Mothra

United States

#38053 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's some thoughts. Let's see if we can find more!...
Please don't. I can tell you're not going to answer the question, but use this as a bash-Bush session.

But all that was fixed under Obama, right?

LOL

No politics, indeed.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38054 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?
No, I really should be cutting the grass.
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:

"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?"

Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38055 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:
"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?"
Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.
caveman's crowd always seem to favor sacrifice and making efforts....as long as someone else is doing the lifting.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38056 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.
By the way everyone, I want to point out this little gem caveman wrote in reference to this old Met Office prediction that by 2014 the 2007 to 2014 time period will be warmer than 2004 by 0.3 C.:

"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.

So caveman, if by the end of 2014, the 2007 to 2014 time period is not 0.3 C greater than 2004, can we say that the predictions are worthless and no one has an explanation of what exactly controls the temperatures?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38057 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well you are making progress, finally. For a time deniers disputed that the globe was warming. Now they are saying that it is but man has nothing to do with it because Rush Limbaugh says you can’t believe in God and man-made global warming at the same time.

Read more: http://www.siftingsherald.com/article/2013081...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38058 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What year was that?
1998, if not sooner.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38059 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The rest of the story;
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said at the time that the past decade had been the warmest on record. Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38060 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My point, which zoomed right past you, is that the slowdown was predicted ACCURATELY seven years ago. So let's not hear any of that "no one saw it coming" crap.

Were they accurate in that prediction up to now, or not?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38061 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are making progress, finally. For a time deniers disputed that the globe was warming. Now they are saying that it is but man has nothing to do with it because Rush Limbaugh says you can’t believe in God and man-made global warming at the same time.
Read more: http://www.siftingsherald.com/article/2013081...
My position has always been this, you just refuse to accept that. And point out which scientists state there has been no warming and that CO2 does not have an effect on warming. Maybe instead of letting Think Progress tell you what AGW skeptics believe, you should find out for yourself. Have you started charging Rush for living rent free in your head yet?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38062 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My position has always been this, you just refuse to accept that. And point out which scientists state there has been no warming and that CO2 does not have an effect on warming. Maybe instead of letting Think Progress tell you what AGW skeptics believe, you should find out for yourself. Have you started charging Rush for living rent free in your head yet?
Perhaps you should show us the proof that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. To do that, you need to show exactly what else is causing it. All this hyperbola about global warming stalling is not helping your cause. If we would see a decade or two below the average, then perhaps you would have something. However, you are simply posting out of the denier playbook.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38063 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way everyone, I want to point out this little gem caveman wrote in reference to this old Met Office prediction that by 2014 the 2007 to 2014 time period will be warmer than 2004 by 0.3 C.:
"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.
So caveman, if by the end of 2014, the 2007 to 2014 time period is not 0.3 C greater than 2004, can we say that the predictions are worthless and no one has an explanation of what exactly controls the temperatures?
No, the POINT was, and the bullseye is, that the prediction of a slowing of the rate was accurately predicted and the oceans were named as a key factor. This something deniers have been cheering about the scientists missing. Well, this guy didn't miss. His prediction certainly wasn't worthless, now was it?

I don't know what the margin of error was re the 0.3 C. I know that predictions have varying degrees of accuracy and that the science is ongoing so new details are discovered all the time. But if you want to throw out the CO2 or methane contribution, you're not allowed. The science is too firm.

If the warming is greater than 0.3 C, will you promise to go away?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38064 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:
"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?"
Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.
I'm not searching for your bullshit.

Got a number for that post? Give it to me so I can go quickly to your conspiracy theory and blow it out of the water.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38065 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point, which zoomed right past you, is that the slowdown was predicted ACCURATELY seven years ago. So let's not hear any of that "no one saw it coming" crap.
Were they accurate in that prediction up to now, or not?
No,this is what the prediction said...GW will be held in check for a FEW years and it will then come ROARING back. At least half the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998. That prediction has already failed.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38066 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The rest of the story;
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said at the time that the past decade had been the warmest on record. Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.
Of course, because this is the only science that is absolute. The only science that can dismiss all obsevations that don't match a model and claim it doesn't make a difference, we are still on track to catastrophic GW.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38067 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should show us the proof that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. To do that, you need to show exactly what else is causing it. All this hyperbola about global warming stalling is not helping your cause. If we would see a decade or two below the average, then perhaps you would have something. However, you are simply posting out of the denier playbook.
Oh so now in order to disprove AGW, you have to show an EXACT cause whereas to prove AGW it can just be plausible, even if all models fail to live up to obsevations. So far the skeptics who have said we are warming and that CO2 does contribute, but more like 15% are more accurate than the models. These scientists have said the warming would not be as catastrophic as the claims from the IPCC. So their argument is more plausible than the AGW hypothesis.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38068 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not searching for your bullshit.
Got a number for that post? Give it to me so I can go quickly to your conspiracy theory and blow it out of the water.
I wrote a few posts on the IMF, World Bank, UN and the Adaptation Fund.

37567
37590
37651
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38070 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I wrote a few posts on the IMF, World Bank, UN and the Adaptation Fund.
37567
37590
37651
You know, I left all those paranoid fantasies when I left the John Birch Society. It's no wonder you're a denier if you can believe that bullshit.
SpaceBlues

United States

#38071 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now in order to disprove AGW, you have to show an EXACT cause whereas to prove AGW it can just be plausible, even if all models fail to live up to obsevations. So far the skeptics who have said we are warming and that CO2 does contribute, but more like 15% are more accurate than the models. These scientists have said the warming would not be as catastrophic as the claims from the IPCC. So their argument is more plausible than the AGW hypothesis.
NONSENSE.

You don't understand learning. Because you don't learn you deal with words only. Your posts are gossip.

You can not make up for your lack of science background either. Give it up!

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) 4 min Brooklyn 1,480,143
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min District 1 234,069
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 47 min Ize Found 71,311
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 49 min SweLL GirL 10,072
John Lewis is NOT a hero, he's an idiot who got... 1 hr Needs New BASHING 9
Duck it and Duck you. 1 hr Quack Quack 1
Cong. John Lewis is a worthless black dem. hack... 4 hr NeedsANewHeadBashing 7

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages