Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54543 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.

Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38171 Aug 19, 2013
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38172 Aug 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly true. Even with factoring in the 1998 El Nino that help elevate the temperature extraordinarily high, there has been a slight warming. If that data is reduced to account for the El Nino there would be a more decided outcome. However, the past decade has been the warmest since temperatures have been recorded.
However by adjusting the data to fit your conspiracy, you are able to perpetuate it.
How did I adjust the data? I took it straight from GISS. Why do you deny the standstill when the scientists admit it? If there has been warming as you say, how come we haven't moved from the 0.5 C increase over 20th century averages since the late 90s? This past decade's temperatures were all pretty much a tie according to NASA. That's a standstill.

From NASA: Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009,which are statistically tied for third warmest year. STANDSTILL

So it is up to you to show me where the 0.5 C warming has been upgraded to a higher number. Otherwise you are just making up conspiracy theories that skeptics are manipulating data.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38173 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
How did I adjust the data? I took it straight from GISS. Why do you deny the standstill when the scientists admit it? If there has been warming as you say, how come we haven't moved from the 0.5 C increase over 20th century averages since the late 90s? This past decade's temperatures were all pretty much a tie according to NASA. That's a standstill.
From NASA: Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The two years differed by less than 0.018 degrees Fahrenheit. The difference is smaller than the uncertainty in comparing the temperatures of recent years, putting them into a statistical tie. In the new analysis, the next warmest years are 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2009,which are statistically tied for third warmest year. STANDSTILL
So it is up to you to show me where the 0.5 C warming has been upgraded to a higher number. Otherwise you are just making up conspiracy theories that skeptics are manipulating data.
Am I supposed to be impressed? The stock market had a hiccup a few years ago. It even went backwards for a few years. However, the trend is ever upwards. Same with the temperature. Many things affect the global temperature but increasing the CO2 concentration will cause the temperature to go ever upwards. We have been over this many times. There are variations in the global temperature year to year. Many things cause this one of which is the oceans , the great heat sinks, of the world. However, we have seen no cooling trend over just a very few years. Understand, the trend is ever upwards.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38174 Aug 19, 2013
Sorry, I didn't answer your question. The data is adjusted by picking intervals that show a pause or even a decline. However, when the data is analysed over the long time period, the temperature shows a definite warming trend.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38175 Aug 19, 2013
I see we've gotten bogged down in that decadal thing.

OK, let's look at decades:
the anomalies are-
1880–1889 &#8722;0.274 °C (&#8722;0.493 °F)
1890–1899 &#8722;0.254 °C (&#8722;0.457 °F)
1900–1909 &#8722;0.259 °C (&#8722;0.466 °F)
1910–1919 &#8722;0.276 °C (&#8722;0.497 °F)
1920–1929 &#8722;0.175 °C (&#8722;0.315 °F)
1930–1939 &#8722;0.043 °C (&#8722;0.0774 °F)
1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
1950–1959 &#8722;0.02 °C (&#8722;0.0360 °F)
1960–1969 &#8722;0.014 °C (&#8722;0.0252 °F)
1970–1979 &#8722;0.001 °C (&#8722;0.00180 °F)
1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)

Hmmm, seems it's been getting warmer lately.

And if there is cooling, why is 2010 the warmest year on record with the anomaly at 0.659?

If there was a pause, it had two high points in the 2004-2014 record, the aforementioned 2010 and 2005 (0.6523). Not much of a pause, maybe a slowdown in rate?

Got more numbers?
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38176 Aug 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I supposed to be impressed? The stock market had a hiccup a few years ago. It even went backwards for a few years. However, the trend is ever upwards. Same with the temperature. Many things affect the global temperature but increasing the CO2 concentration will cause the temperature to go ever upwards.
Yes, and that is the point... IF CO2 is the Primary Driver of CC then it would not be a secondary driver behind other drivers of CC... correct? CO2 is at it's highest (400 ppm, a record of sorts) yet temps are not following. Again - that is according to Hansen, Jones and Trenberth. To deny that there has been a pause in Temps when the current instrumental raw data says there has been a pause seems like an odd reversal of appeal to authority.

For a few years now CO2 (the main driver of CC) has NOT been pushing temps "ever upward", which is to say... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38177 Aug 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Sorry, I didn't answer your question. The data is adjusted by picking intervals that show a pause or even a decline. However, when the data is analysed over the long time period, the temperature shows a definite warming trend.
Then show me where the temperatures have increased over the 0.5 C anomaly. You still provide no proof for your statements.

Headline 2009:

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

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 in the northern German city of Kiel. 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." "It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

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 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, 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.

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

Did these scientists cherry pick? This information did not come from skeptics and we now have 4 more years to add to the standstill and still no warming.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38178 Aug 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
I see we've gotten bogged down in that decadal thing.
OK, let's look at decades:
the anomalies are-
1880–1889 &#8722;0.274 °C (&#8722;0.493 °F)
1890–1899 &#8722;0.254 °C (&#8722;0.457 °F)
1900–1909 &#8722;0.259 °C (&#8722;0.466 °F)
1910–1919 &#8722;0.276 °C (&#8722;0.497 °F)
1920–1929 &#8722;0.175 °C (&#8722;0.315 °F)
1930–1939 &#8722;0.043 °C (&#8722;0.0774 °F)
1940–1949 0.035 °C (0.0630 °F)
1950–1959 &#8722;0.02 °C (&#8722;0.0360 °F)
1960–1969 &#8722;0.014 °C (&#8722;0.0252 °F)
1970–1979 &#8722;0.001 °C (&#8722;0.00180 °F)
1980–1989 0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
1990–1999 0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
2000–2009 0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
Hmmm, seems it's been getting warmer lately.
And if there is cooling, why is 2010 the warmest year on record with the anomaly at 0.659?
If there was a pause, it had two high points in the 2004-2014 record, the aforementioned 2010 and 2005 (0.6523). Not much of a pause, maybe a slowdown in rate?
Got more numbers?
What dataset are you using. What are the decades compared too?
Which dataset has 2010 as 0.659 anomaly. The highest of the 4 datasets I have seen has 2010 at 0.56 C. We haven't even reached 2014 so what are you talking about?
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38179 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

"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?"
I couldn't understand what he was babbling
World Meteorological Organization

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.”

Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being are tied to climate and weather. In the last 2 years, the United States experienced 25 climate- and weather-related disasters exceeding $1 billion ($115 billion total) in damages and claiming 1,019 lives. The public, businesses, resource managers, and policy leaders are increasingly asking for information to help them understand how and why climate conditions are changing and how they can prepare.
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#38180 Aug 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.”
Americans’ health, security, and economic well-being are tied to climate and weather. In the last 2 years, the United States experienced 25 climate- and weather-related disasters exceeding $1 billion ($115 billion total) in damages and claiming 1,019 lives. The public, businesses, resource managers, and policy leaders are increasingly asking for information to help them understand how and why climate conditions are changing and how they can prepare.
oh my 'caveman', that is funny. every time the wind blows, or it rains, or the sunshines, or it gets cloudy and the wind just doesn't feel right, it is all caused by man. good one 'caveman'. 1,019 lives is not even close to the toll of the titanic, and it was caused by a friggen iceburg. weather isn't changing,'caveman', people are. and that is climate and weather story of the day.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38181 Aug 19, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is the point... IF CO2 is the Primary Driver of CC then it would not be a secondary driver behind other drivers of CC... correct? CO2 is at it's highest (400 ppm, a record of sorts) yet temps are not following. Again - that is according to Hansen, Jones and Trenberth. To deny that there has been a pause in Temps when the current instrumental raw data says there has been a pause seems like an odd reversal of appeal to authority.
For a few years now CO2 (the main driver of CC) has NOT been pushing temps "ever upward", which is to say... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
what a wicked web they weave.......

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38182 Aug 19, 2013
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>oh my 'caveman', that is funny. every time the wind blows, or it rains, or the sunshines, or it gets cloudy and the wind just doesn't feel right, it is all caused by man. good one 'caveman'. 1,019 lives is not even close to the toll of the titanic, and it was caused by a friggen iceburg. weather isn't changing,'caveman', people are. and that is climate and weather story of the day.
lol. Bravo!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38183 Aug 19, 2013
Scientists were asked if they use the restroom on a daily basis....
Cook concludes 97% think the world is going to shit based off their answers.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38184 Aug 19, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no Carbon Driven GW tipping point in Earth's history as far as I know.
Irrelevant! And I highly suspect that you know it is. There's never been a period where ten million years worth of carbon sequestration is undone on 10 years, either.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>For man to trigger such an event, CO2 levels in excess of 15 times current levels would be necessary. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5...
I saw absolutely nothing on the page that supports your claim. I also know that the consensus warming level for dangerous tipping points has been 2degC (rumored to be reduced to 1.5degC in the next IPCC report) which we'll hit rather quickly at a small fraction of your insane 6000 ppm.

I'm calling you out on a BIG LIE.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38185 Aug 19, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>what a wicked web they weave.......
That you weave. The instrumental record you yammer about conveniently leaves out the oceans - the sink for 93.4% of the heat gained.

Denier scum.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38186 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no warming for 15 years. No conspiracy, it's documented.
Only for morons and deniers. FACT: Science says that warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. Only a denier or a moron would ignore the ocean heat gain - 93.4% of the total - after having surely been exposed to the error repeatedly.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38187 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>So it is up to you to show me where the 0.5 C warming has been upgraded to a higher number. Otherwise you are just making up conspiracy theories that skeptics are manipulating data.
Done. Note that this is old news:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-...

"With any luck, the paper will be published in a few months (it was) and we'll have more to say on the subject at that time (they have). In the meantime, Levitus et al. have once again reminded us that although the surface warming may have been dampened in recent years, global warming hasn't magically vanished, and that heat stored in the oceans will eventually come back to haunt us."

You've been shown to be wrong. A rational and honest person would now admit it. Can you?
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38188 Aug 19, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and that is the point... IF CO2 is the Primary Driver of CC then it would not be a secondary driver behind other drivers of CC... correct?
Not correct. There's no detectable logic involved in your conclusion.
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
CO2 is at it's highest (400 ppm, a record of sorts) yet temps are not following. Again - that is according to Hansen, Jones and Trenberth. To deny that there has been a pause in Temps when the current instrumental raw data says there has been a pause seems like an odd reversal of appeal to authority.
For a few years now CO2 (the main driver of CC) has NOT been pushing temps "ever upward", which is to say... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Depends on what you take the temperature of, nitwit. If you take the temperature of the entire planet, warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. If you ignore all but 6.6% of the Earth, you get a slower warming. Even then, all 10 of the warmest years in the last 150+ are since '98.

If you include the oceans, where 93.4% of the warming tends to go, it's clear how screwed we'll be when the Pacific oscillates the other way.

Denier scum.
Kyle

Kendallville, IN

#38189 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What dataset are you using. What are the decades compared too?
Which dataset has 2010 as 0.659 anomaly. The highest of the 4 datasets I have seen has 2010 at 0.56 C. We haven't even reached 2014 so what are you talking about?
Desperate much? LOL!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38190 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Only for morons and deniers. FACT: Science says that warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. Only a denier or a moron would ignore the ocean heat gain - 93.4% of the total - after having surely been exposed to the error repeatedly.
The next thing to be introduced by the deniers will be "body temperature" claiming it hasn't risen either. You can at least be assured that none of these ppl will ever end up the next Steve Jobs or Einstein.

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) 14 min sonicfilter 1,276,955
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 39 min Joe Balls 196,939
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Prince Reebus 100,645
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr RACE 6,430
Word (Dec '08) 4 hr boundary painter 5,426
Ask Amy 9-1-15 4 hr Mrs Gladys Kravitz 11
Dear Abby 9-1-15 6 hr boundary painter 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages