Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54319 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

#38358 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The scientists "couldn't see' where the warming went because Not One Single Climate Model predicted where the missing energy went so these climate experts did not know where to begin to look.
To this day the experts are guessing (without benefit of a climate model that successfully forecast this mystery) the energy is "SOMEWHERE" in the oceans and perhaps someday they may find it :-)
Too funny because; Time And Time Again these facts do not in the slightest way shake the faith of the true believers in CAGW.
<quoted text>
Let me TRY, and I emphasize TRY, to straighten you and the other contrarians out.

Not One Single Climate Model is perfect.

Not One Single Climate Model is chiseled in stone.

Not One Single Climate Model is Fate, boy.(You believe in Fate, boy?)

Climate models are the best estimation of events that could possibly happen. For all their failings, they are pretty damn good. And the information that we have seen lately indicates that they err on the conservative side. Their inaccuracy seems to be in not forecasting the severity already seen and the seriousness of what's coming.

IF...this slowdown in the rate of warming is supposed to be a precursor to a genuine cooling, then I need you to tell me what is reversing a 100+ year trend. Tell us (and back it up) what the models missed that is suddenly causing a reversal of warming.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38359 Aug 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>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.
And "boy" fits your comments pretty well too. How old are you, boy, twenty-something?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38360 Aug 23, 2013

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38361 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And "boy" fits your comments pretty well too. How old are you, boy, twenty-something?
no, son, I'm not.
Lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38362 Aug 23, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38363 Aug 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ tech/environment/item/16372-cl imate-theories-crumble-as-data -and-experts-suggest-global-co oling
Oh wonderful, the John Birch Society! I thought they went out with the typewriter.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#38364 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, but good try. The graph shows that the last half of the 20th century was higher than the prior 400 years in the maximum activity.
You set one foot up on Mt. Everest. Then you claim to have climbed it because you are at least a foot higher than any time in the past.

Such stupidity is truly worthy of a denialist. While the solar constant IS higher than over the last 400 years (assuming accurate solar estimates prior to satellites) the point WAS that the variation is VERY SMALL and cannot contribute more than 0.2C of warming at best.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38365 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, but good try. The graph shows that the last half of the 20th century was higher than the prior 400 years in the maximum activity.
What it also shows is the minimum activity was much higher than at any other time in the last 400 years.
Kinda like the AGW statements about the low temps. That nighttime lows are not as low as they used to be. The Met Office made a statement it's not about how hot is gets but more about how cold it doesn't get.
Well in the last half of the 20th century, the sun didn't get very 'cold'.
Meaningless. Just because it is higher does not mean that it is sufficient cause to explain global warming. Even if you could 'wish away' the warming from GHGs. The solar constant is too constant to be a factor in one degree (and more coming) of warming. NO conceivable feedback mechanism can turn that molehill into a mountain.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38366 Aug 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wonderful, the John Birch Society! I thought they went out with the typewriter.
lol...but aren't you and your crowd trying to bring the typewriter back?
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38367 Aug 23, 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?
Thanks Fair Game. Exactly!

Why would Dr. Mann (in your words) " think proxies from one half of the planet would give a valid global figure?"
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38368 Aug 23, 2013
Those who maintain their faith in CAGW Prophecies seem to be missing the point that GW has been a fact for thousands of years and every one knows that on average it is a very good thing. Who would deny such an obvious fact?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38369 Aug 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol...but aren't you and your crowd trying to bring the typewriter back?
Nope, we brought the digital age, the space program, the efficient light bulb, the water saving toilet, wind turbines. Too bad some want to go back to the good old days and give all this up. But we recognize that there is an environmental penalty to pay and want to apply this knowledge and technology to make this a better world. We cannot go back to the dirty old days when there were no catalytic converters on cars and stack cleaners on coal fired furnaces. Even China has come to that realization. Stupid does not solve problems.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38370 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Those who maintain their faith in CAGW Prophecies seem to be missing the point that GW has been a fact for thousands of years and every one knows that on average it is a very good thing. Who would deny such an obvious fact?
I agree that on average it has been a good thing. Above average, not so good.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38371 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Fair Game. Exactly!
Why would Dr. Mann (in your words) " think proxies from one half of the planet would give a valid global figure?"
He doesn't.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38372 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So the models overestimate the impact of CO2 and underestimate the impact of solar activity.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38373 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
We just started measuring the deep oceans about 10 years ago, how do we even know what is "normal" in regards to the warming of the deep oceans?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38374 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot. com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-re markable-correlation.html
Does the IPCC even take any of these papers into consideration?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38375 Aug 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
. We cannot go back to the dirty old days when there were no catalytic converters on cars and stack cleaners on coal fired furnaces.
who is suggesting that?
Lol
You peeps have a flair for the dramatic.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38376 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me TRY, and I emphasize TRY, to straighten you and the other contrarians out.
Not One Single Climate Model is perfect.
Not One Single Climate Model is chiseled in stone.
Not One Single Climate Model is Fate, boy.(You believe in Fate, boy?)
Climate models are the best estimation of events that could possibly happen. For all their failings, they are pretty damn good. And the information that we have seen lately indicates that they err on the conservative side. Their inaccuracy seems to be in not forecasting the severity already seen and the seriousness of what's coming.
IF...this slowdown in the rate of warming is supposed to be a precursor to a genuine cooling, then I need you to tell me what is reversing a 100+ year trend. Tell us (and back it up) what the models missed that is suddenly causing a reversal of warming.
LOL!!! The Met Office uses AGW climate models in their forecasts. Let's see how that has worked out:

1. Met Office 2008 Forecast: Trend of Mild Winters Continues
Met Office, 25 September 2008: The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.

Reality Check: Winter of 2008/09 Coldest Winter For A Decade

2. Met Office 2009 Forecast: Trend To Milder Winters To Continue, Snow And Frost Becoming Less Of A Feature. Met Office, 25 February 2009: Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said:“Despite the cold winter this year, the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future.“The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more, compared with approximately every 100 to 200 years before 1850.”

Reality Check: Winter Of 2009/10 Coldest Winter For Over 30 Years

3. Met Office 2010 Forecast: Winter To Be Mild Predicts Met Office

Reality Check: December 2010 “Almost Certain” To Be Coldest Since Records Began. Met Office Predicted A Warm Winter. Cheers Guys

John Walsh, The Independent, 19 January 2010: Some climatologists hint that the Office’s problem is political; its computer model of future weather behaviour habitually feeds in government-backed assumptions about climate change that aren’t borne out by the facts. To the Met Office, the weather’s always warmer than it really is, because it’s expecting it to be, because it expects climate change to wreak its stealthy havoc. If it really has had its thumb on the scales for the last decade, I’m afraid it deserves to be shown the door.

Paul Hudson, BBC Weather, 9 January 2010: Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this? A Period Of Humility And Silence Would Be Best For Met Office

4. Met Office 2012 Forecast: Drier than average conditions for April-May-June.

Reality Check: Wettest April for 100 years

5. Met Office 2013 Forecast: Feb-March Above-Average UK Temps More Likely.

Reality Check: Met Office confirms coldest March in more than 50 years.

Met Office global forecasts too warm in 11 out of last 12 years.

Since the Met Office has started decadal forecasting they have already changed the forecast 2 times since 2007.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38377 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>

IF...this slowdown in the rate of warming is supposed to be a precursor to a genuine cooling, then I need you to tell me what is reversing a 100+ year trend. Tell us (and back it up) what the models missed that is suddenly causing a reversal of warming.
What caused the Little Ice Age?

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) 9 min PolakPolacki 1,263,721
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 13 min Rose of Tralee 100,273
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min Coffee Party 194,572
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 40 min Gas Woman 70,145
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 3 hr OLD need 2 die 6
Local Politics Do you approve of Rahm Emanuel as Mayor? (Sep '12) 3 hr NAZIFASCISTSTAR-D... 9
Tony Rezko's great friends, BH Obama & Valerie ... 3 hr Fearless Fosdick 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages