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
35,761 - 35,780 of 46,229 Comments Last updated 28 min ago
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38067
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38068
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38072
Aug 16, 2013
 
“If the bee disappeared off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live.”

&#8213; Albert Einstein

One of the added lil bonuses from a changing planet and man interacting with the environment. World bee population down by as much as 30% in some places.
Causes as yet unknown, but the usual suspects high on the list.

http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityc...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38073
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
With the thousands of predictions made, ONE seems to be accurate thereby validating all the failed ones?

Reminds me of Hype posting a single article about a researcher who itemized his expenses from a grant, as "proof" that all the others do the same.

Extrapolate much?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38074
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now in order to disprove AGW, you have to show an EXACT cause
Yes. ANY viable and convincing cause or error that can be proven to violate the theory will bring it down. That is a VERY low bar.

One of the reasons that we classify AGW as 'theory' is that no such error or incompatible fact exists. That is what makes it 'science'.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
whereas to prove AGW it can just be plausible
Rather, it must satisfy ALL arguments, from the expansion of the atmsophere to the distribution of the warming over land and sea. Tens of thousands of 'test cases' had to be passed and confirm the theory before it could reach 'consensus'. This is a VERY high bar for 'proof'.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
even if all models fail to live up to obsevations.
Models must be able to sufficiently model the current reality. As they do. OTOH, Projections of the future have a lower bar because they are 'precautionary' forecasts and not 'data'. In general, the forecasts have been good so far. Some surprises are to be expencted and that does not diminish the useful work of GCM models to give a basis for expectations of the future.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38075
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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?


Maybe it was a misprint and they meant .03C warmer ?
Met Office is known for bogus forecasts, last December they claimed 2013 would be .57C above the long term average, best estimate. That would make this the warmest year on record, so far it isn't even near record.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38076
Aug 16, 2013
 
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
With the thousands of predictions made, ONE seems to be accurate thereby validating all the failed ones?
Reminds me of Hype posting a single article about a researcher who itemized his expenses from a grant, as "proof" that all the others do the same.
Extrapolate much?
You guys come up with a single paper all the time claiming clouds, or cosmic rays, or burning goat horns causes warming, and you run with it.

Nothing's validated except what was in this paper. If he was the only one who came close, he was the only one who came close.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38077
Aug 16, 2013
 
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe it was a misprint and they meant .03C warmer ?
Met Office is known for bogus forecasts, last December they claimed 2013 would be .57C above the long term average, best estimate. That would make this the warmest year on record, so far it isn't even near record.
Maybe you're nuts. Maybe a liar.

The forecasts by [the UK Met Office] are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000. The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average - within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C. By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C - within a range of 0.28-0.59.

Keep up with reality. You erred even on steveG. What's the basis for your errors, hmmm, maybe lies?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38078
Aug 16, 2013
 
Belief.

Gee, caveman won:

The Earth is warming.
We are causing it.
We can do something about it.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Krusty believes in an international conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, generals, bankers, politicians, and world leaders, past and present, who plan to take over control of the world.

Something like:

The Illuminati trace their origins back thousands of years to their conception as a result of the genetic inbreeding between a reptilian extraterrestrial race and humanity. Their modern origin, however, traces back to the 1760s and a man named Adam Weishaupt, who defected from the Catholic church and organized the Illuminati, financed by the International Bankers. Since then, according to the Illuminati, their top goal has been to achieve a “one world government” and to subjugate all religions and governments in the process. The Illuminati thus attribute all wars since the French Revolution as having been fomented by them in their pursuit of their goals.

Weishaupt wrote out a master plan in the 1770s outlining the Illuminati’s goals, finishing on May 1, 1776. According to the Illuminati, this great day is still commemorated by Communist nations in the form of May Day. At the time Weishaupt’s ideology was first introduced, Britain and France were the two greatest world powers, and so the Illuminati claimed credit for having kindled the Revolutionary War in order to weaken the British Empire and the French Revolution to destroy the French Empire..........Under new leadership by an American general named Albert Pike, the Illuminati worked out a blueprint for three world wars throughout the 20th century that would lead to a one world government by the end of the 20th century. According to the Illuminati, the First World War was fought to destroy Czarism in Russia (the Illuminati had held a grudge against the Czarist regime since Russia had thwarted its plans for a one world government after the Napoleonic Wars) and to establish Russia as a stronghold of Communism.

Likewise, the Illuminati claim that the Second World War pitted the Fascists against the “political Zionists” so as to build up International Communism until it equaled in strength that of the United Christendom. According to Illuminati plans, the Third World War, which is to be fought between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world, will drain the international community to the extent that they will have no choice but to form a one world government.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< >

Belief.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38079
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well lets see what we have:

20 December 2012 - 2013 is expected to be between 0.43 °C and 0.71 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a best estimate of around 0.57 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38080
Aug 16, 2013
 
I'm sure half these deniers would be more happy with a large asteroid heading towards Earth to finish us all off rather than a unseen enemy like man made warming. That way they could argue about its trajectory while they wait and die defiant.

All through history its been the same with the flat earth ppl, the plaque was caused by witches so they were burnt at the stake. Science always had to play a backward step until evidence rolls over them like a steam roller. One wonders what the steam roller will be with warming, one hurricane too many or the cost of living.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38081
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lets change the subject, my favorite is football ! What are the chances the Ravens can repeat as champs ?
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38082
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sarcasm sucks, but when the subject goes from climate to asteroids and witch burning what next.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38083
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

No Warming wrote:
Sarcasm sucks, but when the subject goes from climate to asteroids and witch burning what next.
You may not like the comparison, but when ignorance is viewed by historians in years to come. I'm sorry but you guys will be right up there with the witch burners. Science is real, its not a religion nor is it a myth.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38084
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

This is ignorance :

"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.

And here is the record since 2004.

Year

HadCRUT4

NOAA NCDC

NASA GISS

WMO Average

2012 0.44±0.10 0.45 0.44 0.45
2011 0.40±0.09 0.41 0.44 0.42
2010 0.54±0.09 0.53 0.56 0.54
2009 0.49±0.09 0.47 0.5 0.48
2008 0.38±0.09 0.38 0.37 0.38
2007 0.48±0.09 0.46 0.52 0.49
2006 0.49±0.09 0.47 0.48 0.48
2005 0.53±0.09 0.52 0.55 0.54
2004 0.44±0.09 0.45 0.41 0.43

Where is .3C warming.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38085
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

You might read this article from the guardian. It explains the way you guys distort data.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/2...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38086
Aug 16, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

How can I distort data I didn't create, its all in the records. I'm not Mike Mann.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38087
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You can calculate the margin of error by using the .3C forecast and .02C actual outcome, problem is you need an even more screwed up forecast for comparison. Maybe Met Office can claim the next two years will be one full degree [1C] above 2004 and it will smooth things out. Still need some warming at some point.

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) 4 min Obumbles the Zero 1,095,535
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Learn to Read 176,762
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 34 min Shanaynay 3,909
Defense Logistics Support 34 min Its me Albie 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 50 min edogxxx 97,775
Abby 8-21 52 min edogxxx 1
Amy 8-21 54 min edogxxx 1

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 ]
•••