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

Full story: Newsday 49,348
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38420 Aug 25, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> it doesn't. It is purely a redistribution of wealth ploy.
If money can fix it, it's not the climate that's broken.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38421 Aug 25, 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.
Hands has nothing to do with it.

You can't get your brain around it because your brain is no longer flexible.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38422 Aug 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hands has nothing to do with it.
You can't get your brain around it because your brain is no longer flexible.
It is not their brain or their hands that they can't get around it. It is only their mouths that do. Lots of talk. No evidence.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#38424 Aug 25, 2013
well let's see! i'm looking at the Atlantic Ocean satellite feed and there is nothing out there. It is the last week of August right?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#38426 Aug 25, 2013
I had remembered an ABC news story on the subject from 2006,“Category 6 Hurricanes? They’ve Happened.” As Bill Blakemore reported:

There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they’re pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years — and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.

In fact, say scientists, there have already been hurricanes strong enough to qualify as Category 6s.

Two years ago, Scientific American published,“Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?” which explained:

Atmospheric researchers tend to agree that tropical cyclones of unusual ferocity are coming this century, but the strange fact is that there is no consensus to date on the five-point scale used to classify the power of these anticipated storms. In what may sound like a page from the script of the rock-band spoof Spinal Tap with its reference to a beyond-loud electric guitar amplifier volume 11, there is actually talk of adding a sixth level to the current Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, on which category 5 intensity means sustained winds higher than 155 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour) for at least one minute, with no speed cap.

The lack of an upper limit on the scale results in all of the most intense tropical cyclones getting lumped together, despite their wide range of power. Category 5 becomes less descriptive when it includes 2005&#8242;s Emily, which reached peak wind speeds of 257.5 kph (160 mph) and six hours in category 5; the same year’s Katrina which held peak wind velocity of 280 kph (175 mph) for 18 hours in the category; and 1980&#8242;s Allen, churning with peak winds at 305 kph (190 mph) maintained for 72 hours in the highest category.

And now the ferocity forecast for the century adds to this classification problem.“The severe hurricanes might actually become worse. We may have to invent a category 6,” says David Enfield, a senior scientist at the University of Miami and former physical oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This new level wouldn’t be an arbitrary relabeling. Global satellite data from the past 40 years indicate that the net destructive potential of hurricanes has increased, and the strongest hurricanes are becoming more common—especially in the Atlantic.

From Joe Romm
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38427 Aug 25, 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.
No peer reviewed science is necessary for me because I am clearly NOT "anti global warming" (as you put it).
GW is a 'fact' as well as an evangelical 'cause célčbre'. As such, everyone knows that Man has benefited from this (GW) change! So wake up each morning afraid of the day's weather extremes and allow the rest of us enjoy the climate we have been fortunate enough to be born into.

You and others may need to think some scientists are smart enough to understand how and when the climate will change ... fine. I will not call you stupid for what you want to believe.

Personally, I do not bestow my faith upon such scientific prophecies.
So; if sea level rises 2.5 feet by year 2100 I may feel silly for "denying" the power of today's science but until a scientific Forcast comes true it seems reasonable to remain skeptical of such prognostications.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38428 Aug 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
I had remembered an ABC news story on the subject from 2006,“Category 6 Hurricanes? They’ve Happened.” As Bill Blakemore reported:
There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they’re pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years — and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.
In fact, say scientists, there have already been hurricanes strong enough to qualify as Category 6s.
Two years ago, Scientific American published,“Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?” which explained:
Atmospheric researchers tend to agree that tropical cyclones of unusual ferocity are coming this century, but the strange fact is that there is no consensus to date on the five-point scale used to classify the power of these anticipated storms. In what may sound like a page from the script of the rock-band spoof Spinal Tap with its reference to a beyond-loud electric guitar amplifier volume 11, there is actually talk of adding a sixth level to the current Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, on which category 5 intensity means sustained winds higher than 155 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour) for at least one minute, with no speed cap.
The lack of an upper limit on the scale results in all of the most intense tropical cyclones getting lumped together, despite their wide range of power. Category 5 becomes less descriptive when it includes 2005&#8242;s Emily, which reached peak wind speeds of 257.5 kph (160 mph) and six hours in category 5; the same year’s Katrina which held peak wind velocity of 280 kph (175 mph) for 18 hours in the category; and 1980&#8242;s Allen, churning with peak winds at 305 kph (190 mph) maintained for 72 hours in the highest category.
And now the ferocity forecast for the century adds to this classification problem.“The severe hurricanes might actually become worse. We may have to invent a category 6,” says David Enfield, a senior scientist at the University of Miami and former physical oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This new level wouldn’t be an arbitrary relabeling. Global satellite data from the past 40 years indicate that the net destructive potential of hurricanes has increased, and the strongest hurricanes are becoming more common—especially in the Atlantic.
From Joe Romm
Yes! The storms are so numourous and severe science lacks the resources to properly track these events.. We will likely see more severe weather making landfall than ever before! The severerity of future storms could be unpresedented! Papers suggest that the threat has been underestimated. Are some scientists privately saying that the Earth itself is at risk?...And this is from the optimists. Others fear that the CO2 "Tipping Point" has already occurred and mass chaos is unavoidable. It's true... Look it up!
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38429 Aug 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If I may, Mr. gcaveman1,

Point #1
Earth is Warming... and for thousands of years Man has benefited.

Point #2
We are causing it.. but to what degree of certainty as to how much is open to robust debate.

Point #3
There is something we can do about it... if there was a reason to believe we have warmed past "The Perfect Climate" for life on Earth.

Climate has always changed and getting warmer seems better than getting colder.

-koolaid
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38430 Aug 25, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may, Mr. gcaveman1,
Point #1
Earth is Warming... and for thousands of years Man has benefited.
Point #2
We are causing it.. but to what degree of certainty as to how much is open to robust debate.
Point #3
There is something we can do about it... if there was a reason to believe we have warmed past "The Perfect Climate" for life on Earth.
Climate has always changed and getting warmer seems better than getting colder.
-koolaid
You are drinking again.

Nobody should take your word without evidence. And we don't.

Sober up, LOL.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#38431 Aug 25, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may, Mr. gcaveman1,
Point #1
Earth is Warming... and for thousands of years Man has benefited.
Point #2
We are causing it.. but to what degree of certainty as to how much is open to robust debate.
Point #3
There is something we can do about it... if there was a reason to believe we have warmed past "The Perfect Climate" for life on Earth.
Climate has always changed and getting warmer seems better than getting colder.
-koolaid
Your really, really, really simple points are noted, koolaid.

Don't call us. We'll call you.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#38432 Aug 25, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes! The storms are so numourous and severe science lacks the resources to properly track these events.. We will likely see more severe weather making landfall than ever before! The severerity of future storms could be unpresedented! Papers suggest that the threat has been underestimated. Are some scientists privately saying that the Earth itself is at risk?...And this is from the optimists. Others fear that the CO2 "Tipping Point" has already occurred and mass chaos is unavoidable. It's true... Look it up!
Yes, I know.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38433 Aug 25, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may, Mr. gcaveman1,
Point #1
Earth is Warming... and for thousands of years Man has benefited.
False.

For thousands of years, Man has only known a relatively stable climate.
Point #2
We are causing it.. but to what degree of certainty as to how much is open to robust debate.
False.

The evidence is very strong that human activity is causing the warming, and causing most of it.
Point #3
There is something we can do about it... if there was a reason to believe we have warmed past "The Perfect Climate" for life on Earth.
Climate has always changed and getting warmer seems better than getting colder.
False.

The perfect climate for us is somewhere between where the icesheets return and the glaciers and polar ice caps melt.

The glaciers and polar ice caps are melting.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38434 Aug 25, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
What is the “natural” balance of CO2? How does the Earth know to remove only “natural” CO2 and not remove any human CO2?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38435 Aug 25, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
See what I mean, James Hansen takes a guess at the issue and here comes Oz with the blogs to solve the problem.
Less Fact will post the same blog at least 5 times a day to reinforce the premise.
That's their AGW Bible. They never question.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38436 Aug 25, 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.
There is no “anti-global warming” mantra. All scientists agree the Earth has warmed and that CO2 is increasing. How many times do we have to repeat this for you? The debate is whether CO2 drives the temperatures and leads to catastrophic warming versus CO2 as a minor player leading to a noncatastrophic warming. Fun Facts has already listed many papers on solar impact and here are just a few papers that have been published showing CO2 as a driver is overstated:

Water vapor: A team led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, report that a mysterious 10% drop in water vapour in the stratosphere — the atmospheric layer that sits 10–50 kilometres above Earth's surface — since 2000 could have offset the expected warming due to greenhouse gases by roughly 25%.

M.J. Ring, D. Lindner, E.F. Cross, R.E. Schlesinger: our estimates of climate sensitivity using our SCM and the four instrumental temperature records range from about 1.5 &#778;C to 2.0 &#778;C. These are on the low end of the estimates in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

Nic Lewis…Use of improved methodology primarily accounts for the 90% confidence bounds for ECS reducing from 2.1–8.9 K to 2.0–3.6 K. The revised methodology uses Bayes’ theorem to derive a probability density function (PDF) for the whitened (made independent using an optimal fingerprint transformation) observations, for which a uniform prior is known to be noninformative.

Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi[1] use data from NASA's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment to assess the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases. In this article, they demonstrate empirically that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of greenhouse gases is only about 0.5 degrees Celsius, one-sixth of the IPCC estimate of 3 degrees Celsius.

Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell[2] also examines the data from NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System satellites. It concludes that "eight years of the latest NASA satellite measurements of variations in both the Earth's radiative budget, and in lower atmospheric temperature, suggest two important conclusions related to the global warming issue. The first is that the sensitivity of the climate system is much lower than the IPCC climate models suggest; that is, the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks."

Nicola Scafetta and Richard C. Willson[3] examines data regarding changes in total solar irradiance (TSI), concluding: "This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades.... Current climate models ... have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming." If the warming of the last three decades has been driven by increases in solar output, it cannot also have been driven by human greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have a low sensitivity value.

Continued next post...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38437 Aug 25, 2013
Continued post...

After studying satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data, John D. McLean, Chris R. de Freitas, and Robert M. Carter[4] concluded that ocean patterns dominate climate change in the tropics. They write, "Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI [Southern Oscillation Index] of 5-7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation."

Petr Chylek and Ulrike Lohmann[5] "use the temperature, carbon dioxide, methane, and dust concentration record from the Vostok ice core to deduce the aerosol radiative forcing during the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition and the climate sensitivity." Their research "suggests a 95% likelihood of warming between 1.3 and 2.3 K due to doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2." (A degree Kelvin [K] is equal to a degree Celsius [C].) These values are considerably lower than the sensitivity values estimated by the IPCC.

In another study,[6] the authors use satellite and surface temperature observations to study the effect of aerosols on climate and to examine climate sensitivity. They find "that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide."

Sherwood B. Idso[7] reviews various "natural experiments" that can reveal how sensitive the climate is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and concludes: "Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm [parts per million] doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere."

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38438 Aug 25, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What is the wild theory you are talking about?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38439 Aug 25, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one is disputing that.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38440 Aug 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
I had remembered an ABC news story on the subject from 2006,“Category 6 Hurricanes? They’ve Happened.” As Bill Blakemore reported:
There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they’re pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years — and all but a handful of hurricane experts now agree this worsening bears the fingerprints of man-made global warming.
In fact, say scientists, there have already been hurricanes strong enough to qualify as Category 6s.
Two years ago, Scientific American published,“Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?” which explained:
Atmospheric researchers tend to agree that tropical cyclones of unusual ferocity are coming this century, but the strange fact is that there is no consensus to date on the five-point scale used to classify the power of these anticipated storms. In what may sound like a page from the script of the rock-band spoof Spinal Tap with its reference to a beyond-loud electric guitar amplifier volume 11, there is actually talk of adding a sixth level to the current Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, on which category 5 intensity means sustained winds higher than 155 miles per hour (250 kilometers per hour) for at least one minute, with no speed cap.
The lack of an upper limit on the scale results in all of the most intense tropical cyclones getting lumped together, despite their wide range of power. Category 5 becomes less descriptive when it includes 2005&#8242;s Emily, which reached peak wind speeds of 257.5 kph (160 mph) and six hours in category 5; the same year’s Katrina which held peak wind velocity of 280 kph (175 mph) for 18 hours in the category; and 1980&#8242;s Allen, churning with peak winds at 305 kph (190 mph) maintained for 72 hours in the highest category.
And now the ferocity forecast for the century adds to this classification problem.“The severe hurricanes might actually become worse. We may have to invent a category 6,” says David Enfield, a senior scientist at the University of Miami and former physical oceanographer at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This new level wouldn’t be an arbitrary relabeling. Global satellite data from the past 40 years indicate that the net destructive potential of hurricanes has increased, and the strongest hurricanes are becoming more common—especially in the Atlantic.
From Joe Romm
Just curious, this statement is made in your article:

"There is no official Category 6 for hurricanes, but scientists say they’re pondering whether there should be as evidence mounts that hurricanes around the world have sharply worsened over the past 30 years."

What were hurricanes like prior to the 30 years mentioned? Why only go back 30 years?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38441 Aug 25, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no “anti-global warming” mantra. All scientists agree the Earth has warmed and that CO2 is increasing. How many times do we have to repeat this for you? The debate is whether CO2 drives the temperatures and leads to catastrophic warming versus CO2 as a minor player leading to a noncatastrophic warming. Fun Facts has already listed many papers on solar impact and here are just a few papers that have been published showing CO2 as a driver is overstated:
<snip>
Continued next post...
You forgot the link, Krusty.

A cut'n'paste from American Enterprise Institute.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American...

The people who offer scientists $10,000 to criticise global warming science.

The people who took $1.6m from ExxonMobil.

What do you get if you have that venal attitude?

A handful of papers from fringe scientists, cracks, ideologues and outright charlatans, papers which do not overturn the evidence for carbon as the cause of global warming because the evidence does not support them, or they have been shown to be wrong.

But they are popular round the denier blogs with people desperate to believe global warming is not true.

It is folks, and the people who tell you otherwise are whoring for the fossil fuel industry, whether they know it or not.

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) 9 min Grey Ghost 1,156,136
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 40 min Hatti_Hollerand 722
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 41 min Hatti_Hollerand 4,923
Chicagoa s 2014 murder total on track for anoth... 42 min reality is a crutch 1
koi meri paryshani door kar sakta ha ?? 1 hr Wish 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr L Morales 71,264
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr Roxie Darling 1,537
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Learn to Read 182,146
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 6:00AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015
NBC Sports 7:32 AM
Full-blown Bears house-cleaning could be coming