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

There are 53571 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.

heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#38214 Aug 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Cycle 24 as compared to the last three cycles. Cycle 21 began in 1976.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
oh but 'facts', we have been told time and time again, over and over, by the alarmist global warming caused by man religious fanatics that it is not the sun, it is all caused by man. the only explaination for any slowdown in the warming caused by man is becaused of the carbon tax imposed on the people of austraila. because of them being forced into paying carbon taxes we are already seeing cooling on a world wide scale. don't you see 'facts', it is not the sun or it's cycles causing global warming, it is people not paying carbon taxes.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38215 Aug 20, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>still waiting on your response about rfs2!!!!!
i can't believe you don't know what that is....and champion yourself on this thread in being "in the know"!
LOL!!!!!
I know about the renewable fuels standards. I hadn't heard it referred to as "rfs2".

I have absolutely no interest in it. I doubt I can do a thing about it. I favor more efficient vehicles. That's my response.

My area of expertise is construction; residential, commercial, and industrial. I work for more efficient buildings, which now use ~40% of energy in this country. I promote wind and solar, which are more compatible with and adaptable to buildings than they are to transportation.

Again, I have no interest in your subject.

“I Feel”

Since: Feb 09

Blest4it!

#38216 Aug 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know about the renewable fuels standards. I hadn't heard it referred to as "rfs2".
I have absolutely no interest in it. I doubt I can do a thing about it. I favor more efficient vehicles. That's my response.
My area of expertise is construction; residential, commercial, and industrial. I work for more efficient buildings, which now use ~40% of energy in this country. I promote wind and solar, which are more compatible with and adaptable to buildings than they are to transportation.
Again, I have no interest in your subject.
thanks for your honesty!!!! I wish more people here would admit that their promoting climate change alarmism is self serving, too.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38217 Aug 20, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent observation, "fun facts"!!
Another point of interest is that all severe weather events seem to be the result of "man made dirty weather" when those events are near populated areas that receive a lot of media coverage.
Nonsense.

Noone? You deniers are liars.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38218 Aug 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Cycle 24 as compared to the last three cycles. Cycle 21 began in 1976.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
So waht!

You flash it to convince your denier buddies of your solar knowledge which is nil. LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38219 Aug 20, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38220 Aug 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.
Since it is AIR temperature and subject to a lot of influence from ENSO and other climate oscillations, the 'standstill' is meaningless, which has been pointed out by those who UNDERSTAND the climate.

And now they point out that the noise peak will be the other way (and still not significant) while the climate warming continues at a steady pace (the signal, not the noise).
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how it’s the alarmists that keep trying to explain the standstill.
Anyone with a decent education and knowledge of the problems inherent in using air temperature at 2 meters (meteorology data) as a proxy for the other 98% thermal mass (ocean and land) will be trying to educate you. Far from being 'alarmist' they will educate you in the fact that it would take only a small hit on the GDP with eventual benefits in terms of higher GDP in the future to solve the problem. The 'alarmists' here are the denialists that are trying to hide from the issue and hope it goes away.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38221 Aug 20, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>thanks for your honesty!!!! I wish more people here would admit that their promoting climate change alarmism is self serving, too.
Hardly. Far from being self-serving, it's known to those of us with larger vocabularies than yours as "specialization".

Were I a chef, I might favor solar ovens and methane biofuel or waste-heat recovery. But I have no interest in abandoning something I have been learning and practicing for 40 years just to start cooking.

Maybe you're a mechanic. If so, good for you. You like machines? Then masturbate while fantasizing about real gas as opposed to pseudo-gas and write angry letters to the editor about RFS2. Service yourself!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38222 Aug 20, 2013
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>oh but 'facts', we have been told time and time again, over and over,
Proving only that you are hard of learning..
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text> by the alarmist .. religious fanatics
The alarmism seems to be more centered on those who deny the science in order to keep the 'status quo'. They are totally panicked by the idea that they must act responsibly and you can tell it by denalist posts like yours.
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>global warming caused by man that it is not the sun, it is all caused by man.
WHAT here is AGW, the warming of the global average surface temperature. Certainly the energy comes from the sun, but the CAUSE of the surface suddenly warming (while the sun changes very little in relative terms) is the increase in the 'insulating' greenhouse effect. The change is to the temperature (or stored thermal energy) not the INFLUX of energy which is fairly stable.

And yes, the increase in the Greenhouse effect is clearly a response to man made increases in greenhouse gases.
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text> is becaused of the carbon tax imposed on the people of austraila.
A global carbon SURCHARGE (not tax) may be the best way to adjust the economy to a lower fossil fuel role using the market systems. A surcharge means a price added at the point of origin that is then REBATED to the consumer to prevent any economic hardship as long as they are using no more or less fossil fuels than previously. The surcharge rate can be set by international agreement as the response shows improvements.
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text> because of them being forced into paying carbon taxes we are already seeing cooling on a world wide scale. don't you see 'facts', it is not the sun or it's cycles causing global warming, it is people not paying carbon taxes.
You really need to go back to school and get an education. I cannot see any way that you can correct your many confusions without a sound basis for reasoning first.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38223 Aug 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Just curious, what was the Anarctic sea extent like during this time period?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38224 Aug 20, 2013
* sea ICE extent?
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38225 Aug 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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: "Irrelevant! "
Too funny. Interesting style of 'debate' you have there.

Ok. With such a smartly constructed response to my point, what can I say?
How about:
Oh Ya.... WelI, It So Relevant, Kyle!!!:0P

Ad you say "never been a period... ". So there is no precedence to base a scientific opinion. Just speculation.
Ok I can debate in that style as well.

This extra CO2 will lead to Prettier, Healthier and Happier life on Earth... Just like the days when ave. atmospheric CO2 was >1000ppm.

Oh wait there is a precedence for MY statement... Oh Well, I guess I was wrong hen I thought I could construct an argument as silly as yours.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38226 Aug 20, 2013
Yes I know... Proof read, proof read, proof read.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38227 Aug 20, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it is AIR temperature and subject to a lot of influence from ENSO and other climate oscillations, the 'standstill' is meaningless, which has been pointed out by those who UNDERSTAND the climate.
And now they point out that the noise peak will be the other way (and still not significant) while the climate warming continues at a steady pace (the signal, not the noise).
<quoted text>
Anyone with a decent education and knowledge of the problems inherent in using air temperature at 2 meters (meteorology data) as a proxy for the other 98% thermal mass (ocean and land) will be trying to educate you. Far from being 'alarmist' they will educate you in the fact that it would take only a small hit on the GDP with eventual benefits in terms of higher GDP in the future to solve the problem. The 'alarmists' here are the denialists that are trying to hide from the issue and hope it goes away.
You are missing the point. These are the people who are supposed to understand the climate. They said this:

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

And in the article, they stated that warming would occur 150% faster than predicted.

It didn't seem meaningless to the scientists 5 years ago. They specifically stated it would warm 150% faster and the skeptics would pretty much have to shut up. But now that the temperatures didn't rise, it is meaningless. So my point is, the alarmists that are making excuses.

“I Feel”

Since: Feb 09

Blest4it!

#38228 Aug 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. Far from being self-serving, it's known to those of us with larger vocabularies than yours as "specialization".
Were I a chef, I might favor solar ovens and methane biofuel or waste-heat recovery. But I have no interest in abandoning something I have been learning and practicing for 40 years just to start cooking.
Maybe you're a mechanic. If so, good for you. You like machines? Then masturbate while fantasizing about real gas as opposed to pseudo-gas and write angry letters to the editor about RFS2. Service yourself!
LOL....why would I do that, son? My "specialization" is "greener" than yours. I'm just honest about it. You people always jump to the silliest conclusions. It's like you're intentional knee jerk reactionaries !!!
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38229 Aug 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense.
Noone? You deniers are liars.
Dear SpaceBlues, you consistently have some of the strongest arguments supporting GW!

“I Feel”

Since: Feb 09

Blest4it!

#38230 Aug 20, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense.
Noone? You deniers are liars.
???

Lol

Very scientific response!
Scotty

Monterey, CA

#38231 Aug 20, 2013
Al Gore and all this Global Warming crap is nothing but a bunch of hype. Al Gore flies all over the world in his big private jet spewing exhaust pollutants into the atmosphere. If there were real Global Warming, don't you think this idiot would be using other means of transportation? Hell no...because he just needs something to talk about. We are so lucky he didn't get elected president of these United States of America. We would all be having to walk or ride bicycles or better yet, be forced to buy and electric car if we wanted to go anywhere. Wake up folks...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOLBAL WARMING. If the oceans were rising as much as they say they are, I would need a submarine to go the store with...ha, ha, ha.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38232 Aug 20, 2013
Scotty wrote:
Al Gore and all this Global Warming crap is nothing but a bunch of hype. Al Gore flies all over the world in his big private jet spewing exhaust pollutants into the atmosphere. If there were real Global Warming, don't you think this idiot would be using other means of transportation? Hell no...because he just needs something to talk about. We are so lucky he didn't get elected president of these United States of America. We would all be having to walk or ride bicycles or better yet, be forced to buy and electric car if we wanted to go anywhere. Wake up folks...THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOLBAL WARMING. If the oceans were rising as much as they say they are, I would need a submarine to go the store with...ha, ha, ha.
What is GOLBAL?

You did not even mention he does not eat as many cows as you do. Did you notice he's skinny again?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38233 Aug 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another thing they tell us is that the Earth is warming faster in the last 35 years than it has in 11,000 years, so it has to be because of CO2. They really want us to defy logic on this one. We have 4 temperature datasets. None of them agree on the exact temperatures. These datasets are constantly updated and revised. Yet they want us to believe that by looking at few proxies, they know exactly how fast temperatures went up 11,000 years ago.
You are the one's who defy logic, in 1920 the world's population was under 2 billion. The US up until now was the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Next year it will be over taken by China, now the world's population is over 7 billion and counting. In the meantime we had most of them walking or on bicycles to get around now they want electricity and cars. So go figure, all of a sudden you have 3 or 4 USA's emitting greenhouse gases that were not there before and you keep telling us it has NO EFFECT.
That's what i call defying logic, at what point do you think it would have an effect ?
Everything else you have been taught in physics tells you about cause and effect, like if you throw waste into a river system for long enough it soon becomes toxic. Yet somehow somehow this cause n effect is just a made up conspiracy. Do you ever think how stupid you make yourselves look!

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Jacques Orleans 190,009
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min RoxLo 1,233,381
Ask Amy 5-27-15 12 min PEllen 4
Dear Abby 5-27-15 18 min tiredofit 4
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 31 min Gary Seven 115
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 57 min TRD 70,029
News 56 shot - 12 fatally - over Memorial Day weekend 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]