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 46,313 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38109 Aug 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are your figures correct? Are these C or F?
You do realize that 0.44 is more than 0.3? And that the average of the first column is 0.465?
Let's see if wormingly replies..

A can of worms, really.

Good one.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38110 Aug 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>in that case, son, stop whining and try to figure it out. It's not good science or good manners to whine about unproven hypotheses.....and claim they're settled science.
The days of whine and cheese are over, mickey! Learn that the science is settled according to the scientific method and is not in your realm.

Get used to it, mickey.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38111 Aug 17, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee... what if the planet isn't warming?
...
Gee...That would be nice! Back to reality....
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38112 Aug 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are your figures correct? Are these C or F?
You do realize that 0.44 is more than 0.3? And that the average of the first column is 0.465?
Seriously? I really can't believe you posted this. The prediction was:

1. At least 3 of the years after 2009 would be warmer than 1998 in which 1998 was about 0.66 above the 20th century average. That means those numbers should have been at least 0.67 or greater.
2. 2014 would be 0.3 higher than 2004 in which 2014 would be about 0.74.

Geez no wonder you thought this prediction was right. So you really don't even know what it is you are posting.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38113 Aug 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Let's see if wormingly replies..
A can of worms, really.
Good one.
Really?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38114 Aug 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>The days of whine and cheese are over, mickey! Learn that the science is settled according to the scientific method and is not in your realm.
Get used to it, mickey.
says the pseudoscience hobbyist. lol

get the facts.....get smart....stop looking so foolish, son.

mitigating co2 will help....what.....how so? i haven't seen a scientific method that addresses that.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38115 Aug 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? I really can't believe you posted this. The prediction was:
1. At least 3 of the years after 2009 would be warmer than 1998 in which 1998 was about 0.66 above the 20th century average. That means those numbers should have been at least 0.67 or greater.
2. 2014 would be 0.3 higher than 2004 in which 2014 would be about 0.74.
Geez no wonder you thought this prediction was right. So you really don't even know what it is you are posting.
Let me man up and say that I had 0.3 in my head as the average for the decade when I posted. Obviously, all of the years or half the years would have to be higher to give an average of 7.3-7.5.

I posted that morning before my 3rd cup of coffee and right after I found my favorite pet diamondback dead.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38116 Aug 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This was wasn't eve accurate. If it was accurate, why did the Met Office throw it out? The prediction was for 2004-2014. At the time they made the prediction they already knew we were in a pause, so they just predicted a few more years of the pause and then temperatures would come roaring back with 3/5 years after 2009 being warmer then 1998. They then threw out this prediction and revised it in 2011 to this: During the period 2012-2016 global average temperatures will rise between 0.36 C and 0.72 C above the long term (1971-2000) average with values most likely to be about 0.54 C higher than average. They then threw out that prediction and revised it again in 2012 to now say 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.
There is no way a 10-year prediction is accurate if it has already been revised 2 times.
Here is an overlay with the 2011 prediction with the updated 2012 prediction.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/01...
But neither is your reading comprehension all that good either:

“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.

…WARMING WILL BE HELD IN CHECK….
…WARMING WILL SLOW….

You win on the numbers, you lose on the prediction itself, you know, the PREDICTION that was the heart of my first on “the pause”? The prediction of deniers’ favorite recent event?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38117 Aug 17, 2013
No Warming wrote:
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.
Let me ask again; are you sure about these numbers? They all show warmth above the average. And, they are from HadCRUT4, NOAA NCDC, NASA GISS, and the WMO?

Can you really trust these four organizations, after everything else they have SAID?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38118 Aug 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But neither is your reading comprehension all that good either:
“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.
…WARMING WILL BE HELD IN CHECK….
…WARMING WILL SLOW….
You win on the numbers, you lose on the prediction itself, you know, the PREDICTION that was the heart of my first on “the pause”? The prediction of deniers’ favorite recent event?
They made the prediction in 2004. WE WERE ALREADY IN A PAUSE. They predicted the pause would only last until 2009 and then come ROARING back. Why do you think they have since revised this 2 times? Beacause they were wrong.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38119 Aug 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me man up and say that I had 0.3 in my head as the average for the decade when I posted. Obviously, all of the years or half the years would have to be higher to give an average of 7.3-7.5.
I posted that morning before my 3rd cup of coffee and right after I found my favorite pet diamondback dead.


That''s okay. Happens to all of us. Sorry about your pet.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38120 Aug 17, 2013

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38121 Aug 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
They made the prediction in 2004. WE WERE ALREADY IN A PAUSE. They predicted the pause would only last until 2009 and then come ROARING back. Why do you think they have since revised this 2 times? Beacause they were wrong.
When you cherry pick data instead of looking at the over all picture you can make the stats speak your language. You saw the link i sent from the guardian and it shows how you deniers pick periods in the time line to find flat lines then declare that warming is a joke. But real science reads the WHOLE graph and that is only going one way, UP.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38122 Aug 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
They made the prediction in 2004. WE WERE ALREADY IN A PAUSE. They predicted the pause would only last until 2009 and then come ROARING back. Why do you think they have since revised this 2 times? Beacause they were wrong.
Explain this "pause" when five years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 were all higher globally that 2004, according to the NCDC? Explain a pause when '09 and '10 were higher than either '04 or '07?

What, no revisions are allowed? Revisions, incorporating new data are verboten?

And let's not use the word "pause". Nothing has paused; the rate of increase has slowed considerably, as the years in the first paragraph demonstrate.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38123 Aug 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>says the pseudoscience hobbyist. lol
get the facts.....get smart....stop looking so foolish, son.
mitigating co2 will help....what.....how so? i haven't seen a scientific method that addresses that.
Mitigating deniers is the correct approach.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38124 Aug 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Mitigating deniers is the correct approach.
well, son, that's a hobby you should steer clear of. i don't think you'd be very good at that one either.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38125 Aug 17, 2013
climate change deniers use dishonest or unethical tactics to counter climate change theory. Most people find it difficult to believe that the climate change debate is rigged, and this gullibility is the basis of the deniers’ success.

How ExxonMobil uses big tobacco’s tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science.” Here is the executive summary from that report:


In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. As this report documents, the two disinformation campaigns are strikingly similar. ExxonMobil has drawn upon the tactics and even some of the organizations and actors involved in the callous disinformation campaign the tobacco industry waged for 40 years. Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has:
•Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence.
•Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message and thereby confuse the public.
•Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade the media and the public that there is still serious debate among scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences.
•Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global warming with misleading charges about the need for “sound science.”
•Used its extraordinary access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming.

The report documents that, despite the scientific consensus about the fundamental understanding that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions, ExxonMobil has funneled about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue. Many of these organizations have an overlapping — sometimes identical — collection of spokespeople serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors. By publishing and republishing the non-peer-reviewed works of a small group of scientific spokespeople, ExxonMobil-funded organizations have propped up and amplified work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

ExxonMobil’s funding of established research institutions that seek to better understand science, policies, and technologies to address global warming has given the corporation “cover,” while its funding of ideological and advocacy organizations to conduct a disinformation campaign works to confuse that understanding. This seemingly inconsistent activity makes sense when looked at through a broader lens. Like the tobacco companies in previous decades, this strategy provides a positive “pro-science” public stance for ExxonMobil that masks their activity to delay meaningful action on global warming and helps keep the public debate stalled on the science rather than focused on policy options to address the problem.

In addition, like Big Tobacco before it, ExxonMobil has been enormously successful at influencing the current administration and key members of Congress. Documents highlighted in this report, coupled with subsequent events, provide evidence of ExxonMobil’s cozy relationship with government officials, which enable the corporation to work behind the scenes to gain access to key decision makers. In some cases, the company’s proxies have directly shaped the global warming message put forth by federal agencies.

Ultimately, deniers’ tactics have delayed mitigation and worsened climate change, with the public suffering the consequences.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38126 Aug 17, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
When you cherry pick data instead of looking at the over all picture you can make the stats speak your language. You saw the link i sent from the guardian and it shows how you deniers pick periods in the time line to find flat lines then declare that warming is a joke. But real science reads the WHOLE graph and that is only going one way, UP.
Cherry picking data is a 2-way street. Picking 10-year periods that start with 1 will give a different trend than picking a 10-year period starting with 3 or 4 or whatever; and by just comparing 1991-2000 to 2001-2010, you totally miss the GW standstill. The scientists aren’t denying this, so I’m not exactly sure why you put so much emphasis on the decade to decade, as it didn’t increase the overall global temperature.

This is from a news article in November 2009 right before the Copenhagen Climate Conference:

The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year. The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact." Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the UN IPCC. When their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

(This was in 2009 and we are now into 2013 with still no warming.)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sta...

Now at the very same time (December 2009-just in time for the Copenhagen Climate Conference), the WMO puts out this statement; WMO Confirms that There is No Slowdown in Global Warming. In a freshly released report on Tuesday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade ever on record. While the WMO has warned the world about this dire situation before, this new analysis further confirms the urgency and need for us to take action. The agency’s findings arrived in time to counteract the scrutiny of global warming deniers who have been increasingly more vocal as the COP15 conference to fight the effects of climate change commenced in Copenhagen.

http://inhabitat.com/wmo-confirms-that-there-...

Now when you go to click the link to the report, you get an error page. Whatever was there was taken down. The WMO totally misled the reality of the data to further a political agenda.

And in the article you linked, Peter Stott of the Met Office only admitted that temperatures around the world have been broadly static over the past five years, but that’s not true, it’s been 15 years. Then the graph in that article was untrue also. Please find me a scientist who doesn’t believe the temperatures have increased 0.7 degrees over the last 100 years. The graph made it look like skeptics don’t see rising temperatures.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#38127 Aug 17, 2013
The report is bogus; Exxon/Mobil and their customers have a right to advocate against higher energy taxes, intrusive regulations and wasteful government spending on renewable energy.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38128 Aug 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain this "pause" when five years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 were all higher globally that 2004, according to the NCDC? Explain a pause when '09 and '10 were higher than either '04 or '07?
What, no revisions are allowed? Revisions, incorporating new data are verboten?
And let's not use the word "pause". Nothing has paused; the rate of increase has slowed considerably, as the years in the first paragraph demonstrate.
Because when you average them out, it's not not that big of an increase, if at all. Obviously it couldn't have been that big, because we are still at 0.7 C. Revisions are okay as long as you own up to them. Taking old ones off the site and then not indicating past mistakes doesn't allow for accountability. They can just claim they always anticipated a pause, when in fact they didn't. If they had, they would not have had to revise their predictions 2 times. The 3rd revision wasn't even announced. It was found by a blogger.

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 min _Zoey_ 4,668
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Dale 177,381
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min USAsince1680 1,100,198
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 37 min JOEL 68,986
The Official Jonas Brother Chat Room!!!! (Oct '08) 1 hr Madison Taylor Ho... 744
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 68,369
Danger! It is horrible, rotten luck to hug a w... 1 hr Preacher 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Sublime1 97,932
Amy 8-29 8 hr Kuuipo 13
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••