Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63856 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.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38323 Aug 22, 2013
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.

Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.

The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
SpaceBlues

United States

#38324 Aug 22, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.
Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.
The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
Very good. Thanks for the link.

I posted above some about Professor Curry because there's a flare up again with her. I feel like talking to her in person.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38325 Aug 22, 2013
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.

NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Judith Curry drives a Prius, and is an admitted "light switch nazi".

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38326 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.
NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.
Judith Curry drives a Prius, and is an admitted "light switch nazi".
so....are you saying she's an honest variety of your team, son?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38327 Aug 22, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.
Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.
The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
LOL!!!!!
terms of degrees? your 'team' seems to predict them with horrible results.
years of results have been revised...revised....revised, and are still innacurate.
WHY CAN'T IT BE DELAYED???? NONE OF THE SHYT YOU PREDICT IS COMING TRUE!!!! I had more faith in the Maya calendar!!! LOL!!!
You, son, are clinging to a faith in your opinions.....nothing could be further from reality from where I stand.
buy your bike...buy your volt....live in a solar home. your opinions and beliefs are all your own. why do you demand everyone else buy into your unfounded faith??

it's all political pseudoscience. if you don't get the joke.....don't blame us who know better.

peace.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38328 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.
NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.
too bad 'your scientists' didn't have the intellectual honesty she does.....unless they have bacon to go with the egg on their face on a near daily basis.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38329 Aug 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
what's the difference in a pause or a slower rise....if it ain't rising?'hayseeds' want to know. speak to caveman's people on this!!

LOL
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38330 Aug 22, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>so....are you saying she's an honest variety of your team, son?
Don't call me "son", boy, I'm probably old enough to be your grandpa, and I could be.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38331 Aug 22, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
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?
Not much.

You could see here how she fluffs her one-dimensional model testing:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JA...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38332 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.
Yes, it fits. And yes they all come out of the woodwork to protest. They believe, and nothing is harder to counter than belief. You can't do it with facts.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38333 Aug 22, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
You DO realize "you are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"
-Frederick in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein"
Fun Facts, what 97% of 'real scientists' want you to believe is that every driver you mentioned (PDO, AMO, La Niña, etc) are secondary to 50 molecules of Man made CO2.
Now really, is that really so hard to believe?
Let me think about it. lol
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38334 Aug 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Apparently even having your noses rubbed in what the IPCC actually said won't stop liars like you repeating the same lie.
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?

Second, you posted this:

Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:

"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. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38335 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?
Second, you posted this:
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"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. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.
You are dense!
No Warming

Athens, OH

#38336 Aug 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dense!
Apparently its the Artic Ice that's very "dense", remember the stories over the spring about how it was young thin ice sure to melt away.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_e...
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#38337 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region
I am not clear as to which scientific point you made that I have not addressed.
As to the two points above:
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century. This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al., 1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America. Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
There is also evidence that suggests there could be as many other MWP scholarly papers...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
And again there seems to be 'robust' evidence that there are scholorly papers that address SH proxies on this subject:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/62...
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science. Here, we present a high-resolution 10Be chronology of glacier fluctuations in New Zealand’s Southern Alps over the past 7000 years, including at least five events during the last millennium. The extents of glacier advances decreased from the middle to the late Holocene, in contrast with the Northern Hemisphere pattern. Several glacier advances occurred in New Zealand during classic northern warm periods. These findings point to the importance of regional driving and/or amplifying mechanisms. We suggest that atmospheric circulation changes in the southwest Pacific were one important factor in forcing high-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand."
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined... No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
As to your second point:
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....
Good luck.
-koolaid
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#38338 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region will have periods of warming and cooling trends. The climate anywhere is NEVER stable. But to label it as the MWP without a clear definition of the MWP is just not convincing.
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.
Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#38339 Aug 23, 2013
Yes, hard to believe but there are those who deny GLOBAL WARMING... during the Middle Ages.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38340 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"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. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...

The problem with

"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.

At one time there was the concept of a solar constant. We know now and the graph above illustrates that there is no solar constant. The proponents of AGW hold on to the solar constant by saying the variations we have measured are very small.

In 1991 we experienced the Pinatubo eruption. This volcano put particulate matter into the atmosphere that acted in the same way as clouds and reduced incoming solar energy. This happened at a time when we were measuring TSI mechanically.

"After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun's rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/vie...

The 30 months following Pinatubo earth experienced cooling up to .6*C. As the aerosols cleared the very high activity of cycle 22 was unblocked by the 'clouds of aerosols' and warming resumed.

The sun has a range of activity that is thought to be very small but within that range, the highs and the lows can impact earth significantly.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38341 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?
They never were. That was a lie by the denialists. The only concern of the scientists was that the warming has to go SOMEWHERE and they couldn't see it in the land and ocean at the time. The result is that they discovered that the oceans were warming to deeper levels than expected. This was the surprise, not the variability of the air temperature chart.

You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38342 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't call me "son", boy, I'm probably old enough to be your grandpa, and I could be.
as a grandpa you don't really show much wisdom for your years. Son seems to be more fitting for someone who only cares about his self interests above all else.

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) 3 min RiccardoFire 1,548,878
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 36 min They cannot kill ... 10,848
Illinois is in critical financial crisis. 4 hr Genl Forrest 13
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr huntcoyotes 241,631
Why are White men obsessed with Latina women? (Feb '10) 7 hr StupidGringos 205
Dissolving Illinois 10 hr De Bow 9
Italian Confessional 11 hr Fr Charlie Sheen 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages