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
35,921 - 35,940 of 46,210 Comments Last updated 22 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38232
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38233
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38234
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.
Another one GORED! Beaten, trampled, defeated.

You know how they cut trees down ahead of the fires out your way? They do that to try to save even more trees.

Thas what ole Al's doing. A little sacrifice here, for more sensibility down the road.

Course, sensibility missed you completely. Instead, you got GORED!
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38235
Aug 20, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
For someone who claims you can't give predictions much credit, you sure do spend a lot of time on them.

You DO realize that they are educated guesses and rather imprecise by their very nature? The general idea in a prediction is sometimes realized but the details are far less often nailed tight.

Did the scientists say all this WOULD happen, and that it would DEFINITELY warm 150%? Or was it "the article" stating that. i.e., the media? Because the media might say anything, and can, and often does.

Because, like the Republican polls that saw Romney winning by a respectable margin, predictions can be colored by the people making them, or by the people reporting the prediction.

And, as with climate change, just wishing it wasn't true won't make it false.

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38236
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a news article from 2009:
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.
The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/j...
When reading the comments section to this article, a poster said this:
“Contrary to the subheading, rapid warming in the next five years certainly will not silence the sceptics-- it's hard to imagine that anything could. They'll just say that it's solar activity, as they've said all along, and El Niño, nothing to do with us, and not worth lifting a finger to do anything about it.”
Funny how it’s the alarmists that keep trying to explain the standstill.
What standstill?

As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up. Arctic sea ice melt has accelerated. Disintegration of the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica has sped up. The rate of sea level rise has doubled from last century.

Finally, very recent studies of the ocean, which has absorbed the vast majority of the heat, also show global warming has accelerated in the past 15 years. Sadly, the AR5 appears to have stopped considering new scientific findings before the publication of this research.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38237
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie. They are prepared for a period of stable or lower AIR temperatures due to climate influences from rising cool water in the Pacific (ENSO, La-Nina). This is a flaw in the use of meteorology data to track AGW (global average surface temperature of which 98% is land and water).
Myself, I agree the PDO / ENSO are factors but we're talking about the IPCC and their contributors. If they felt this variation was significant shouldn't they have considered it in their forecasts many years ago.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38238
Aug 20, 2013
 
Here's something that should thrill the mechanic.

There's a wind turbine going up somewhere in the world, every 30 minutes.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38239
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

People hate Fun Facts for pointing these things out but this is how decadal comparisons are done. By the end of 2016 we'll be looking at about .03C warming over 20 years, yet the public will still be seeing the 1990-2010 comparison.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38240
Aug 20, 2013
 
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious, what was the Anarctic sea extent like during this time period?
Just curious, did you ever get those numbers? And figure out that 0.3 thing?
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38241
Aug 20, 2013
 
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
What standstill?
As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up. Arctic sea ice melt has accelerated. Disintegration of the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica has sped up. The rate of sea level rise has doubled from last century.
Finally, very recent studies of the ocean, which has absorbed the vast majority of the heat, also show global warming has accelerated in the past 15 years. Sadly, the AR5 appears to have stopped considering new scientific findings before the publication of this research.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2...
Sorry man, that's apparently publishing the way it's always been. A book or report can easily be out of date if it takes months to assemble, edit, fact-check, and copy/print.

If some new research is important enough, maybe they could add an addendum?

My own conspiracy theory is that there could be elements within the IPCC who don't want the really bad news to come out. Moles. Deniers in sheep's clothing. Government agents.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38243
Aug 20, 2013
 
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Myself, I agree the PDO / ENSO are factors
In the charts of AIR temperature. They are 'climate noise' in terms of the signal to be tracked (AGW).
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
we're talking about the IPCC and their contributors.
No. We are talking about AGW. And we are talking about the scientist who clearly stated that the chart was of meteorology data, defined the limitations of the data, and pointed out clealry that you need a thirty year filter to separate out the 'climate cycles' like ENSO from the global warming. YOUR ignorance is not in the report.
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
If they felt this variation was significant shouldn't they have considered it in their forecasts many years ago.
It is irrelevant to forecasts of the BASELINE WARMING. The decadal climate cycles are a noise imposed on AGW signal.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38245
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
In the charts of AIR temperature. They are 'climate noise' in terms of the signal to be tracked (AGW).
<quoted text>
No. We are talking about AGW. And we are talking about the scientist who clearly stated that the chart was of meteorology data, defined the limitations of the data, and pointed out clealry that you need a thirty year filter to separate out the 'climate cycles' like ENSO from the global warming. YOUR ignorance is not in the report.
<quoted text>
It is irrelevant to forecasts of the BASELINE WARMING. The decadal climate cycles are a noise imposed on AGW signal.


I don't read blogs and I don't read comments from people that simply repeat them.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38247
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't read blogs and I don't read comments from people that simply repeat them.
That's probably the best way for you to handle LHMF. Just bail out.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38248
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

One for the deniers:
Global warming and climate change are usually thought to mean that world sea levels will rise, perhaps disastrously. But according to US government boffins, in recent times (2010 and 2011, to be precise) phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall.
In short, it's probably human-caused climate change that did it: specifically the Australian flooding of 2010 and 2011, which is generally thought by climate scientists to be at least partly attributable to rising atmospheric carbon levels caused by human fossil-fuel burning.

"It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is," says John Fasullo of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"The smallest continent in the world can affect sea level worldwide."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/20/clima...
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38249
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's probably the best way for you to handle LHMF. Just bail out.
Less Fact should be working on his own blog based on that .3C warming you found. Its a gold mine, the science community will be in awe of your achievement.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38250
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No Warming said you have studied solar impacts. There is so much information out there and it gets crazy trying to sift through it. Some scientists have said that the increase in sun spots over the last 100 years has made the Earth warmer, but then alarmists say in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. They say the sun has been going in a cooling trend, but global temperatures are going up.
What is your take on this?
Our sun has been in very high activity. The last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thum...

The above images essentially say the same thing, but the scales are different. The first looks at solar activity from the standpoint of wm2 the second is recording sun spot numbers. One of the most important things to recognize is how solar activity increased at both the upper and lower end of the scale. When it was high it was very high and when it was low, well it didn't get very low. The fact that solar activity didn't get very low in the minimums between cycles is very significant.

When you read that solar activity did not increase or even that it declined, that's right. Since we started mechanically measuring TSI in 1979 solar activity has been high. It had increased to very high levels and in cycle 23 we saw the start of the decline. Cycle 24 continues the decline and it is predicted that cycle 25 will be even lower.

The following chart is from Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/20...

It shows our current era to have very high activity in comparison to the majority of the Holocene.

There is a lag time between solar activity and climate. Although the sun is our primary source of energy, it's real impact on climate is through the oceans. The oceans absorb the energy and distribute it throughout the system. The lag time is stated in different variables but 10 years is commonly used.

Every ocean has oscillations. When solar activity is high it enhances the positive phases of the ocean oscillations. It was high at the same time the Pacific oscillation was in it's positive phase, starting in 1976/77. When this happens the El Ninos are enhanced and the La Ninas are mitigated. Now solar energy is low and the Pacific oscillation is in a negative phase. La Ninas rule in this senario.

The arctic also has oscillations that are impacted by solar activity and when it is positive it impacts the glacier mass balance in Europe. As the ENSO impacts North American glacier mass balance.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38251
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking at the chart, it seems that cycle 23 starting in 1996 and ending in 2008 does fit into the standstill we are seeing in temperatures. Do you have a prediction of where you think temperatures will go during this solar cycle?
Yes, but it's not my prediction. It is predicted by many solar scientists that our temperatures will decrease in the coming decades with a minima at about 2030.

Cycle 24 is not only of low activity it is predicted to be of very long duration. 17 years on the outside, 14 years seems to be the top of the bell curve of predictions. When a cycle is very long the following cycle is very weak. Cycle 25 is predicted to be very weak and although it will have activity, we won't 'see' many spots. Cycle 26 is expected to be higher activity than 25 but won't be near what we have seen in recent years.

We do have a great opportunity. Since we are mechanically measuring TSI and it has been measured in high activity, then the coming decades of low solar activity will give us a better understanding of how much impacts our climate in what ways.

The sun is more than spots. The solar mag field impacts the earth's mag field and that impacts climate. Solar activity determines the size of the heliosphere, that impacts climate. The speed of the solar wind impacts climate. And the sun has an barycentric orbit, that impacts climate.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38252
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
http://squashpractice.files.wordpress.com/201...

http://mclean.ch/climate/figures_2/Comp_to_5K...

I like the ice core data. The above shows a lot of climate variation. The second graph is both greenland and vostok for 5000 years. Each shows significant variations in temperature.

The difference in the patterns is the result of precession, the wobble. The NH moves like the upper end of a top and the SH plays the less variable bottom.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38253
Aug 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>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.
That's the difference between belief and knowledge. Anyone can believe, doesn't take much work and if it turns out the belief is wrong then it's easy to blame someone else for your mistake.

Knowledge takes work. It's not easy. Reading through the papers the scientists write is no walk in the park. But if you want to know, if you want to do more than believe, then that's what is going to take.

It's a choice.

Let's face it, it's much easier to call people names:)
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38254
Aug 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Again, I have never said that CO2 does not contribute some to warming, but it is not the main driver. Obviously that is the case as we are in a standstill right now and the IPCC is saying little warming until 2040, all this with increasing CO2 levels. So obviously there are drivers of the climate that are overriding the increased CO2 levels. For you to just simply say we are increasing CO2 and temperatures are increasing too and disregard the real-time data, then it is you who is defying logic. Like I said earlier, you guys would have been the witch burners.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

70 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Realtime 1,095,087
Ron Paul: Mission Creep in Iraq...and Missouri! 8 min Ron Paul Institute 1
Internment Camps: U. S. Government Field Manual 22 min Gary North Videos 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 33 min wojar 176,655
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 36 min Nono 3,894
Animal Rescue Group: Man Charged with Arizona M... (Oct '12) 38 min Shanaynay 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 39 min Mister Tonka 97,731
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••