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 (Page 1,791)

Showing posts 35,801 - 35,820 of45,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38106
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
Some clowns whine again because they don't understand how science progresses. It's their own fault.
hehehehee
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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38107
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You shout into the wind. Are you qualified to whine about climate science?
NO. About the last election? Perhaps.
blah, blah, blah....

So if it's not piss-ant word games, you're onto inane blather.

How long did you spend in 3rd grade?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38108
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
Your iphone uses more energy than a refrigerator:
The average iPhone uses more energy than a midsize refrigerator, says a new paper by Mark Mills, CEO of Digital Power Group, a tech investment advisory. A midsize refrigerator that qualifies for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star rating uses about 322 kW-h a year, while your iPhone uses about 361 kW-h if you stack up wireless connections, data usage, and battery charging.
http://theweek.com/article/index/248273/your-... #
Communicating information takes energy, they would control our energy use. If you value free speech, look for an experimental test of climate change mitigation or man made global climate change before you let the government tell you how, when or where you can use energy and fuel.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38109
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38110
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38111
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38112
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38113
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38114
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38118
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38119
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38120
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Perhaps this will help.
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/20...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38121
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38124
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38125
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,801 - 35,820 of45,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

101 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghost 1,078,592
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 31 min 75 Scorpio 456
Emanuel's Mayoral Fortunes Rapidly Declining in... 31 min bensleys thoughts 1
Victim in Tuesday's Skokie Shooting is Identified 37 min bensleys thoughts 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 57 min Rose of Tralee 97,515
Abby 7-23 1 hr RACE 10
Amy 7-23 1 hr Kuuipo 8
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 23 at 10:02AM CDT

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••