Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63855 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.

gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38301 Aug 22, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you already said you had no interest in the environment. Back tracking now only makes you look like the bigot who claims to have an interest in race relations.
Interesting take. "no interest in the environment". You guys just can't get anything right, can you?

However, I signed the petition at your urging that I be more socially responsible, so don't go back-tracking on me now.
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#38302 Aug 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called 'vested interest'.
In fossil fuels? Sure. That is why they spend tens of millions in propaganda. But there is no evidence of any significant pressure on climate scientists. They have no vested interet in any result. In fact, their interest is the respect of their colleagues which requires convincing and accurate studies.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38303 Aug 22, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
As a "thinking reader" I am not clear as to why Mann's NH proxies are valid evidence of the LACK of a GLOBAL MWP but all the studies that represent a GLOBAL MWP based on NH proxies are not valid.
If you have already addressed this issue I apologize.
LOL.

Well, "thinking reader", why do you think proxies from one half of the planet would give a valid global figure?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38304 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting take. "no interest in the environment". You guys just can't get anything right, can you?
However, I signed the petition at your urging that I be more socially responsible, so don't go back-tracking on me now.
you said you had no interest in the EPA's stance on renewable fuel standards. You were only interested in the "stationary". How else should I take your position, son?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38306 Aug 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"The Sun might perhaps cool the planet" is not the same as "Temperatures will decrease" because the sun is not the only factor in global temperatures, as any solar physicist would know and Joanna Haigh obviously does.
Which is why fun farts is unable to produce even one solar physicist to back up his claim of "many".
Which is why he is a liar.
This is what you posted: "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C."

What do you mean cooling the planet is not the same as temperatures will decrease.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38307 Aug 22, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

Secondly, and more importantly, even if they could define the MWP and get an agreement on which cherry picked locations show an anomaly, there is the question of the source of the thermal energy. To warm EVERYWHERE by 2C would take a simply ENORMOUS amount of new energy (introduced from where??) Where does this come from? Where does it go away to? Without a mechanism to show a clear source of heat (which is one of the successes of AGW theory in terms that it can show enough thermal energy accumulating to account for the warming over more than a century) any similarity of a warming period elsewhere is purely 'correlation, not causation'. And so it does not pass the 'smell test' and nobody takes it too seriously.
<quoted text>
Repeatedly. But you never learn so apology not accepted. I would rather that you actually ADDRESS the points but you just run away. I expect no different now.
Note. The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci are NOT equal to the finger paintings of a kindegarden student. So you cannot expect the studies to be 'equal'. Your question as to why one is taken seriously and the other dismissed is juvenile and silly. One is a masterpiece. The other is a mess. Nuff said.
But we have been told that AGW does not cause warming everywhere. We are told some places will be hot, some cold, some wet, some dry. We were even told this by Kevin Trenberth:

We can confidently say that the risk of drought and heat waves has gone up and the odds of a hot spot somewhere on the planet have increased but the hotspot moves around and the location is not very predictable. This year perhaps it is East Asia: China, or earlier Siberia? It has been much wetter and cooler in the US (except for SW), whereas last year the hot spot was the US. Earlier this year it was Australia (Tasmania etc) in January (southern summer). We can name spots for all summers going back quite a few years: Australia in 2009, the Russian heat wave in 2010, Texas in 2011, etc. Similarly with risk of high rains and floods: They are occurring but the location moves.”

So what is the difference between now and the MWP?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38308 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you posted: "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C."
What do you mean cooling the planet is not the same as temperatures will decrease.
Here's what I posted:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.

"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.

"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

The sun may cool the planet a bit, but temperatures won't decrease.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38309 Aug 22, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called 'vested interest'.
Do ever notice that whenever you see papers that are written that find SURPRISING results, such as the water vapor leading to cooling or sensitivity being lowered or 30% less glacier melt than expected or even what Fair Game posted about the solar scientist stating we could have 1 C cooling, they always put in the statement that these results do not change the science of AGW. I always think to myself, how can that be? How can you find out new information about a complex system and say it has no effect on future warming?

Judith Curry wrote this great post the other day on vested interest of the scientists and the "consensus police." She went into great detail about this, but one of her examples stood out to me:

Judith Curry: As an example, several years ago at a conference, one of the speakers was quite critical of one piece of the conventional IPCC wisdom, but prefaced the talk with the statement something like this:’While my talk contains some evidence that challenges some of the findings of the IPCC, I want to state up front that I support the IPCC consensus on climate change.’ After the talk, I asked this scientist why he felt the need to preface his talk with a statement of IPCC allegiance, when his research was rather devastating to part of the IPCC’s argument. He stated ‘I don’t want to have to put up with what you have had to, so I make it very clear that I support the IPCC consensus.’

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-...
Mothra

United States

#38310 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still knocking heads with these global warming proselytizers?

Their faith is "science".

Oxymorons...

LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38311 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This seems to exactly fit what we have seen in the past and what we are seeing now, as compared to the AGW hypothesis where they are always trying to explain why temperatures aren't rising as expected. It seems the do protest too much when it comes to the sun. They all came out of the woodwork on this one to protest. They get especially nasty. I think they realize that the sun has a larger effect on the climate than they want to admit.
I see that you do not understand the difference between atmospheric temperatures and global heat. Melting ice does not increase in temperature but absorbs much heat. Vaporizing water absorbs even more. The ocean temperature may only rise by a few hundredths but it has absorbed much more heat that when the atmosphere raises a whole degree. The ocean is a great heat sink.

The Earth is gaining heat. CO2 is a factor. Burning fossil fuels raises the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Therefore mankinds activities are causing global warming.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38312 Aug 22, 2013
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
In fossil fuels? Sure. That is why they spend tens of millions in propaganda. But there is no evidence of any significant pressure on climate scientists. They have no vested interet in any result. In fact, their interest is the respect of their colleagues which requires convincing and accurate studies.
Institutional loyalties
Judith Curry
Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.

Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.

Especially in the renascent subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.

Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. While the IPCC proponents loudly cry out against the heretical skeptical scientists and the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science, we all join in bemoaning these dark forces that are fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics.

So do I think IPCC scientists are policy advocates? They seem mainly concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC, which has become central to their professional success, funding, and influence. Most don’t understand the policy process or the policy specifics; they view the policy as part an parcel of the IPCC dogma that must be protected and preserved at all cost, else their success, funding and influence will be in jeopardy.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38313 Aug 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what I posted:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C.
"Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100.
"So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
The sun may cool the planet a bit, but temperatures won't decrease.
What you fail to understand or what you want to leave out is that the AGW hypothesis in no way ever predicted a 30-year pause or decrease in temperatures. In fact the 2007 IPCC report stated this for 2011-2030:

Climate models show warming averaged for 2011-2030 compared to 1980-1999 is between +0.64 and +0.69 with a range of only 0.05.

So obviously if we do cool, it is the sun that is outstripping CO2's ability to warm. That was NEVER expected. So how can you carry on with such a failed prediction and pretend like cooling never happened and doesn't change the science of AGW? If we do get a 30-year cooling period, it makes all previous predictions meaningless.
SpaceBlues

United States

#38314 Aug 22, 2013
Speaking of Professor Curry... Her own writing leads one to think that she can not follow the whole universe of climate science due to her own deficiencies or blind spots.

PhD, Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago (1982).
• B.S., Geography, Northern Illinois University (1974).

Gosh, her first degree is in geography. She gets busy with politics because it works for her.
NobodyYouKnow

Etobicoke, Canada

#38315 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Institutional loyalties
I don't take Judith Curry as an authoritative voice in either science, sociology or ethics. She has her own agenda.

And I have yet to meet a scientist that has any loyalty to any institution. They tend to brag about the papers they wrote DEMOLISHING the 'established science' if they CAN. It is like 'one upmanship' or to become the new 'authority' on the subject. But they need to have FACTS or the rest of the scientific community will rip them apart.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38317 Aug 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
Well, "thinking reader", why do you think proxies from one half of the planet would give a valid global figure?
Geezuz.

Draw him a picture....
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38318 Aug 22, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you said you had no interest in the EPA's stance on renewable fuel standards. You were only interested in the "stationary". How else should I take your position, son?
I really still have no interest, but that little petition came along and I just couldn't resist. If I had known it was going to piss you off this much, I would have found a dozen more to sign. You're really pushing me to get involved, aren't you?

You guys are all the same; it's either black or white, no middle ground or compromise. When will you see the rainbow?
SpaceBlues

United States

#38319 Aug 22, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still knocking heads with these global warming proselytizers?
Their faith is "science".
Oxymorons...
LOL
Go back to sleep.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38320 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail to understand or what you want to leave out is that the AGW hypothesis in no way ever predicted a 30-year pause or decrease in temperatures. In fact the 2007 IPCC report stated this for 2011-2030:
Climate models show warming averaged for 2011-2030 compared to 1980-1999 is between +0.64 and +0.69 with a range of only 0.05.
So obviously if we do cool, it is the sun that is outstripping CO2's ability to warm. That was NEVER expected. So how can you carry on with such a failed prediction and pretend like cooling never happened and doesn't change the science of AGW? If we do get a 30-year cooling period, it makes all previous predictions meaningless.
There is no "30-year pause or decrease in temperatures", only a decade of slower rise in surface temperatures, something that was *always* expected from time to time by the IPCC.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong of course.
(You're the clown, after all, not me.)
The first IPCC report made it quite clear that we didn't know enough about ocean circulation to make an absolute prediction of year-by-year temperatures:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The uncertainties that we can't predict have not altered the main prediction: decade upon decade warming.
The previous decade was warmer than the one before that.
kristy wrote:
Did they tell that to the policy makers? Did they tell that to the media? Did they tell that to the public?
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
They put it in the report in black and white.
It's called "writing".
Do you expect them to come and explain it to every clown on the planet?
You have to *read* it.
Apparently even having your noses rubbed in what the IPCC actually said won't stop liars like you repeating the same lie.
SpaceBlues

United States

#38321 Aug 22, 2013
Greenhouse gas emissions could offset a natural cooling trend or amplify a heating trend.“It could even mean the plausible worst-case scenario is worse than anything we’ve imagined,” Curry says.“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”

Her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago was on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. She continued that research for a decade while serving as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue and eventually Penn State.

How much did she mitigate of Arctic uncertainties?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38322 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are all the same; it's either black or white, no middle ground or compromise. When will you see the rainbow?
says the cave dweller who demands that man made climate change is settled science! LOL
Btw...it is more likely that earth will be hit by a two mile wide asteroid in the next 15 minutes than you ever agitating me. And you can quote me on that, son.

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) 2 min old_moose 1,548,918
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 17 min Dr Guru 241,615
bring back vocational schools!! 44 min Sherm Potter 54
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 10,844
Back Foor Trump Tax Cuts for Rich Again 2 hr Reeba Sinatra 1
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 3 hr Angry Citizen 9
Dissolving Illinois 3 hr Angry Citizen 7

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages