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

Full story: Newsday 47,481
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38398 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be any length. The two figures are still defined for different things.
The first is net flow of energy. Less heat is being radiated at the top of the atmosphere than is entering. Thus we gain a certain amount of heat energy in the surface layers. It is relate to the 'lag' in warming from the current GHG concentration.
The second is the separated cooling effect of sulphate aerosols as a forcing on the total system.
Apples vs oranges. You need to start understanding simple English. You would probably still make a fool of yourself but at least you would have SOME idea of what you were mixing up.
F--king think for your self for a change! Your incessant cut n paste ' robot talk' disturbs my intellectual sense abilities. God, you pukes make me sick.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38399 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I first started my investigation of global warming when the IPCC lost the MWP. Before that I was like most people I thought the earth was warming because of the increased use of fossil fuels. No reason not to believe the scientists. But when the MWP got lost, I started to look for myself, and I started with the IPCC.
Glad I did. What I found was a very narrow view of the science that was available. I like history and I've studied it a lot. So I knew about the MWP and that it was global. Was surprised that the IPCC didn't..........
Gee how many times have we heard this "light bulb" moment from deniers. It's like suddenly they were blessed with all this higher intellectual capabilities that science had lacked before them. But there is a common theme here, NONE of them have contributed to any scientific work themselves other than to comment on someone else's work.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38400 Aug 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>who is suggesting that?
Lol
You peeps have a flair for the dramatic.
It is your crowd who does not want change. You can't have ikt both ways.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38401 Aug 24, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee how many times have we heard this "light bulb" moment from deniers. It's like suddenly they were blessed with all this higher intellectual capabilities that science had lacked before them. But there is a common theme here, NONE of them have contributed to any scientific work themselves other than to comment on someone else's work.
Not at all. I started with what I know. When I found what I know was not considered, I looked further.

Research is the same everywhere. You start and you follow all the leads. It's not easy, especially in science as the equations and assumptions require some level of basic understanding, but it can be done.

I don't pretend to be able to publish a scientific paper, I rely on the work of the scientists to develop my opinions. And I know there's always 'the rest of the story', so I read both the pro and the con from real scientific work, not web sites or newspaper articles.

I don't pay to read, if a paper is protected by a paywall then, I wait. I don't try to know everything, I don't post on many aspects of the global warming debate.

I post on what I have studied. Fire and ice is how I think about it, the sun's activity/impacts and the ice core data. And of course history.

There is one thing I do believe: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38402 Aug 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
During the last 35 years the total solat irradiation has decreased slightly while the global temperature has been rising.
Are you feeling left out Patriot?

I've addressed your question on this thread in recent days shouldn't be too hard to find.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38403 Aug 24, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee how many times have we heard this "light bulb" moment from deniers. It's like suddenly they were blessed with all this higher intellectual capabilities that science had lacked before them. But there is a common theme here, NONE of them have contributed to any scientific work themselves other than to comment on someone else's work.
So tell us... what 'scientific work' have you contributed?

... or do you just comment on someone else's?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38404 Aug 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your crowd who does not want change. You can't have ikt both ways.
change for a useful purpose is good.....and i, like most rational people, embrace it under those circumstances.

nobody has shown me the useful purpose of a carbon tax. i can't get my hands around just how that will alter climate one way or the other.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38405 Aug 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your crowd who does not want change. You can't have ikt both ways.
If by "your crowd" you mean; those who DEMAND that anyone must embrace the belief that a warming Climate MUST NOT happen because such a CHANGE is very SCARY? Then no, we are not part of that crowd. Pretty sure if you get out of bed tomorrow and take a peek in the mirror you will see one.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38406 Aug 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I started with what I know. When I found what I know was not considered, I looked further.
Research is the same everywhere. You start and you follow all the leads. It's not easy, especially in science as the equations and assumptions require some level of basic understanding, but it can be done.
I don't pretend to be able to publish a scientific paper, I rely on the work of the scientists to develop my opinions. And I know there's always 'the rest of the story', so I read both the pro and the con from real scientific work, not web sites or newspaper articles.
I don't pay to read, if a paper is protected by a paywall then, I wait. I don't try to know everything, I don't post on many aspects of the global warming debate.
I post on what I have studied. Fire and ice is how I think about it, the sun's activity/impacts and the ice core data. And of course history.
There is one thing I do believe: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Blah blah you are WRONG.

First, there's no debate. Especially, not with you, science denier.

Second, you lie in all your posts. What basic understanding? In science or mathematics, you've got nil. Remember how you posted for days "sign" for 'sine' until I corrected you. Those in the know would know trigonometry is the basic of basics.

Third, words are not the science knowledge itself but a way to describe what's science. Those on the know conceptualize in equations and data even in their daily dreams, true!

Lastly, you are probably the most dishonest denier in topix.

P.S. As long as you continue in your <cushy> lies, you are not debate worhty.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38407 Aug 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>change for a useful purpose is good.....and i, like most rational people, embrace it under those circumstances.
nobody has shown me the useful purpose of a carbon tax. i can't get my hands around just how that will alter climate one way or the other.
You are walled in and cornered, poor rogue.

There's no way out for you, LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38408 Aug 24, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "your crowd" you mean; those who DEMAND that anyone must embrace the belief that a warming Climate MUST NOT happen because such a CHANGE is very SCARY? Then no, we are not part of that crowd. Pretty sure if you get out of bed tomorrow and take a peek in the mirror you will see one.
cut the s out of bs, then b
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38409 Aug 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/ tech/environment/item/16372-cl imate-theories-crumble-as-data -and-experts-suggest-global-co oling
Followed your reference's links through to this paper.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5391/2012/bg-...

A study of the arctic sea ice and it's relationship to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and to a lesser extent the Arctic Oscillation (AO). They have one time period where the pattern appears not to match, 1915 to 1925. This time period is the time of solar cycle 15, the lowest SSN value of the 20th century, 1.5. Solar activity impacts the condition of the ocean oscillations but is not considered in this paper.

Very interesting read, turns out this study compares our current arctic sea ice conditions with conditions more like that of the earlier 20th century.

Thanks for the reference.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38410 Aug 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Blah blah you are WRONG.
Remember how you posted for days "sign" for 'sine' until I corrected you.

P.S. As long as you continue in your <cushy> lies, you are not debate worhty.
No, I don't remember that at all. Don't remember posting about 'sine'. Maybe you're confused.

Not worried about your evaluation of my debate worthiness, but I do wonder why you follow me around.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38411 Aug 24, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't remember that at all. Don't remember posting about 'sine'. Maybe you're confused.
Not worried about your evaluation of my debate worthiness, but I do wonder why you follow me around.
Search for it, liar. I'm certain. You have done others as well but you maintain your arrogance. Of course, you don't remember for convenience. Otherwise you would change your denier commitment.

LOL, I don't follow you around; you happen to be where I am, LOL. Is this the only thread you posted lies today? Of course, not. Search for it because you don't remember or you are confused again. Where else I replied to you today?

Oh you don't count my other posts in this thread. What a liar!

Silly goose, this is a public forum. We even get international attendance. That's why your lies have to be pointed out.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38412 Aug 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Search for it, liar. I'm certain. You have done others as well but you maintain your arrogance. Of course, you don't remember for convenience. Otherwise you would change your denier commitment.
LOL, I don't follow you around; you happen to be where I am, LOL. Is this the only thread you posted lies today? Of course, not. Search for it because you don't remember or you are confused again. Where else I replied to you today?
Oh you don't count my other posts in this thread. What a liar!
Silly goose, this is a public forum. We even get international attendance. That's why your lies have to be pointed out.
I can't prove a negative. You made the comment it's up to you to support it.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38413 Aug 24, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be any length. The two figures are still defined for different things.
The first is net flow of energy. Less heat is being radiated at the top of the atmosphere than is entering. Thus we gain a certain amount of heat energy in the surface layers. It is relate to the 'lag' in warming from the current GHG concentration.
The second is the separated cooling effect of sulphate aerosols as a forcing on the total system.
Apples vs oranges. You need to start understanding simple English. You would probably still make a fool of yourself but at least you would have SOME idea of what you were mixing up.
Hansen is explaining the conflict between 2 studies, stick with the blogs idiot.

Ocean Heat

The major factor in assessing the Earth's energy budget is the ocean -- that's where some 90 percent of the excess energy absorbed by the planet due to greenhouse gases ends up going. In other words, to a very rough approximation, whatever energy is added to the Earth's system should show up in the ocean as extra heat.

Hansen and colleagues estimate from ocean data that the oceans absorbed about 0.8 watts per square meter in Period 1, but only 0.58 watts per square meter in Period 2. Loeb et al found a similar decrease in the oceanic heat uptake over time, but calculated a large uncertainty and dismissed the difference as being insignificant. However, Hansen et al estimate a smaller error uncertainty than that of Loeb et al, and argue that the difference is significant.

So Hansen et al come down on the side of Trenberth in the sense that they conclude the ocean is absorbing less heat now than before (about 0.2 watts per square meter less).

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38414 Aug 24, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us... what 'scientific work' have you contributed?
... or do you just comment on someone else's?
What we comment on is posts that dispute the work of science in favour of some wild theory to discount it. Commenting on ignorance means no scientific paper needed, just loads of common sense.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38415 Aug 24, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>change for a useful purpose is good.....and i, like most rational people, embrace it under those circumstances.
nobody has shown me the useful purpose of a carbon tax. i can't get my hands around just how that will alter climate one way or the other.
There is no doubt that CO2 is a GHG. There is no doubt that it is accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. You do not wish to change that.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38416 Aug 24, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
If by "your crowd" you mean; those who DEMAND that anyone must embrace the belief that a warming Climate MUST NOT happen because such a CHANGE is very SCARY? Then no, we are not part of that crowd. Pretty sure if you get out of bed tomorrow and take a peek in the mirror you will see one.
I am not either. But I am one of the crowd that believes what the scientists say about global warming. I do not ditto what Senator Inholfe, Rush Limbaugh, and other folks who have nothing solid to back up their rants. It is easy to say that something is not true. It is something else if one has to back it up. Show us some solid peer reviewed science that backs up the anti global warming mantra. Otherwise, you are just blowing out the kazoo.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38417 Aug 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not either. But I am one of the crowd that believes what the scientists say about global warming. I do not ditto what Senator Inholfe, Rush Limbaugh, and other folks who have nothing solid to back up their rants. It is easy to say that something is not true. It is something else if one has to back it up. Show us some solid peer reviewed science that backs up the anti global warming mantra. Otherwise, you are just blowing out the kazoo.
Our argument and our demand is as basic as it possibly can be. If they can disprove any part of it, we welcome their solid evidence. Where is it?

Our argument is that the Earth is warming, we are causing it, and there is something we can do about it. They can deny each point, but they cannot disprove any of them.

And as a statement of our earnest commitment to this issue, I think you and other AGW acceptors here will agree with me;

we wish we were wrong.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,124,871
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 min Jonah1 50,594
Amy 10-21 10 min PEllen 4
Abby 10-21 18 min PEllen 5
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 28 min HughBe 69,975
Do you find smoking attractive? (No posts about... 1 hr edogxxx 8
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Sgt Prepper 179,268
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]