Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63620 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.

SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#38509 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Rats. That should read "So a Cat 7 would be sustained winds above 195 mph."
The Saffir-Simpson hurricane category scale is based on wind speed: A Category 1 hurricane has sustained winds from 74 to 95 mph, Category 2 has sustained winds from 96 to 110 mph, Category 3 has sustained winds from 111 to 130 mph, Category 4 has sustained winds from 131 to 155, and a Category 5 storm has sustained winds greater than 155 mph.

The categories run in roughly 20 mph increments, so a Cat 6 would be greater than 175 or 180 mph.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story...

Cat 7: 195 or 200 mph.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38510 Aug 26, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL (that means 'Laugh Out Loud')
... says the one who posts from alecexposed... from The Center for Media and Democracy... founded by John Stuaber which sponsors prwatch and sourcewatch.
I do enjoy using the same arguments of warmists on warmists. It's so much fun watching them squirm and find inventive ways to not hold their "science" accountable to same standards they claim others should have.
Good day to ya'.
The only ones who say source watch is questionable are the deniers. If you can refute their claims, let's hear it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38511 Aug 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>The Saffir-Simpson hurricane category scale is based on wind speed: A Category 1 hurricane has sustained winds from 74 to 95 mph, Category 2 has sustained winds from 96 to 110 mph, Category 3 has sustained winds from 111 to 130 mph, Category 4 has sustained winds from 131 to 155, and a Category 5 storm has sustained winds greater than 155 mph.
The categories run in roughly 20 mph increments, so a Cat 6 would be greater than 175 or 180 mph.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story...
Cat 7: 195 or 200 mph.
Exactly what I posted. You are either senile or cannot read. Which?
BECOME INV

Yukon, OK

#38512 Aug 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Make the most of the "no warming" bullshit, because in a year or so we'll see new record temperatures and the warming trend re-emerge.
And deniers lose even more of their credibility.
Another burning issue is the government and big corporation's intentional release of Chemtrails to control our population. This weekend we held numerous demonstrations across this planet.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#38513 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what I posted. You are either senile or cannot read. Which?
You are wrong again; just like you just posted "levies" in another thread re sea-level rise.

Senility makes you too sensitive and WRONG!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38514 Aug 26, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony must certainly not escape you! You have posted about "credibility" THEN call the lack of warming ("no warming") "bullshit"... Now here is the irony; you are posting on the thread called: "Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving little..."
You crack me up with the ubsurditiy of the situations you put yourself in.
Again!!! FACT: 15 year pause in Warmng!
Yet This very thread Posted in 2008... "Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..." Mass deception.
Who are the real climate deniers?
Not "FACT".

*Ocean temperatures continue to rise.

*Satellites still record a drop in energy leaving the Earth, just where CO2 absorbs it, and an imbalance with energy arriving from the sun.

*Temperatures have actually risen over the last 15 years.

*There have been a couple of strong La Nina events recently pushing down the trend; the next El Nino year will push it up again, and Likely bring record temperatures.

But do keep telling us that global warming has stopped: it's going to make it very obvious who the deniers are when we see new record temperatures.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38515 Aug 26, 2013
Link: temperatures over the last 15 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38516 Aug 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong again; just like you just posted "levies" in another thread re sea-level rise.
Senility makes you too sensitive and WRONG!
Yes I believe it was "lhmf" that wrote a scathing opinion of the crap I posted only to dIscover he was responding to one of HIS previous posts. ROTFLMAO
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38517 Aug 26, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Climate models are global, right? Is the FA global, denier scum?
How did you come up with 80% accuracy over 197 years? Be specific in definitions, data base, methodology, global coverage, computations, gossip, etc.
The whole world awaits your response.
Listen to you! Ya sound like a flaming Junior High School "detention supervisor'. He sighted his source... So either thank him for his efforts OR educate yourself by reading it. That's what a " Real Scientist" would do.

Ummm, now I believe a childish personal attack is in order to achieve parity with Space Blues Intellectual Debating Technique.

[So there,:0p ...you poopy head!!]
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38518 Aug 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Link: temperatures over the last 15 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Is this the point when one is required to ask:
Which journey was this published and what are the credentials of the author?
Or does such rigors only apply to ideas outside CCC Orthodoxy?

Perhaps... you are employing the oft accepted CAGW SCIENCE OF: "I saw it on the Internet so it must be true!
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38519 Aug 27, 2013
"journey" = Journal

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38520 Aug 27, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this the point when one is required to ask:
Which journey was this published and what are the credentials of the author?
Or does such rigors only apply to ideas outside CCC Orthodoxy?
Perhaps... you are employing the oft accepted CAGW SCIENCE OF: "I saw it on the Internet so it must be true!
Methodology, Reviews of Geophysics, data available online.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38521 Aug 27, 2013
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38522 Aug 27, 2013
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#38524 Aug 27, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl ot/gistemp/from:1998/plot/gist emp/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcr ut4gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut4g l/from:1998/trend/plot/rss-lan d/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998 /trend/plot/uah/from:1998/plot /uah/from:1998/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38525 Aug 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Make the most of the "no warming" bullshit, because in a year or so we'll see new record temperatures and the warming trend re-emerge.
And deniers lose even more of their credibility.
I don't pretend to know what the climate will do unlike the IPCC, but you all said this in 2009...

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Nińo southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

2013 is not on track to be a hot year, so only 1 year to go and the Met office has already downgraded temperature to a standstill until 2017.

Just to remind you, it is the alarmists who are losing credibility with their alarmist predictions. I see you didn't even comment on all the botched predictions I posted earlier.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38526 Aug 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not tree proxies.
(dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N. A. S. Beveridge, N. J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton. "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675. doi:10.1029/94PA03354
(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J. R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N. I., Barnola J. M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V. M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M.. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436. doi:10.1038/20859
(light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: Alley, R. B.. Quaternary Science Reviews. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(99)0006 2-1
(green) Kilimanjaro ice core, &#948;18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L. G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M. E. Davis, K. A. Henderson, H. H. Brecher, V. S. Zagorodnov, T. A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V. N. Mikhalenko, D. R. Hardy, and J. Beer. "Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa". Science 298 (5593): 589-593. doi:10.1126/science.1073198
(yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: Lea, D. W., D. K. Pak, L. C. Peterson, and K. A. Hughen (2003). "Synchroneity of tropical and high-latitude Atlantic temperatures over the last glacial termination". Science 301 (5638): 1361-1364. doi:10.1126/science.1088470
(orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: B. A. S. Davis, S. Brewer, A. C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1701-1716. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(03)0017 3-2
(red) EPICA ice core, &#948;Deuterium, Central Antarctica: EPICA community members (2004). "Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core". Nature 429 (6992): 623-628. doi:10.1038/nature02599
(dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L. D. Stott, K. G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G. H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). "Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch". Nature 431: 56-59. doi:10.1038/nature02903
Krusty trips over her big clown shoes again.
How we laugh!
Oh so sorry....multiple proxies...but that does not change the fine print:

Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, and hence might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fourth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER SIMILARLY LARGE SHORT-TERM TEMPERATURE FLUCTUATIONS MAY HAVE OCCURRED AT OTHER TIMES, but are unresolved by the available resolution. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#38527 Aug 27, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen to you! Ya sound like a flaming Junior High School "detention supervisor'. He sighted his source... So either thank him for his efforts OR educate yourself by reading it. That's what a " Real Scientist" would do.
Ummm, now I believe a childish personal attack is in order to achieve parity with Space Blues Intellectual Debating Technique.
[So there,:0p ...you poopy head!!]
"He sighted his source?" LOL..

Pssst .. Did you mean 'sauce?'

You have not addressed the content of my post. Ummm, this means you concede.

Your concession is hereby permitted, you ph.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38528 Aug 27, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
This review of climate prediction models seems pretty straightforward to me. No model is perfect, but they do seem to be pretty close.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/03/1...
Here is another site that carries some weight as far as I am concerned:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
Politifact is non-partisan and it does not have an agenda other than to fact check.
Of course the models will be revised as the ARGO data becomes available over a longer term, but that is the nature of models - constant revision.
The predictions are way off. We are told that rising CO2 will increase temperatures. The site you linked to used business as usual scenarios, but yet a few weeks ago you linked to this paper:

http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...

In that paper it said this:

2010 Greenhouse gas emissions are higher than the worst case scenario forecast by the IPCC.“The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming. The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] climate experts just four years ago [2007].....[Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab] said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.”(Seth Borenstein, Associated Press,“Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Gases,” Time Magazine, Thursday, November 3, 2011)

So they are not showing the scenarios of worst case.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#38530 Aug 27, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The predictions are way off. We are told that rising CO2 will increase temperatures. The site you linked to used business as usual scenarios, but yet a few weeks ago you linked to this paper:
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/under...
In that paper it said this:
2010 Greenhouse gas emissions are higher than the worst case scenario forecast by the IPCC.“The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming. The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] climate experts just four years ago [2007].....[Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab] said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.”(Seth Borenstein, Associated Press,“Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Gases,” Time Magazine, Thursday, November 3, 2011)
So they are not showing the scenarios of worst case.
You are DENSE.

Read that article and comprehend. Who's the enemy? YOU!

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) 5 min Teaman 1,522,035
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Buster Steinbeizer 240,358
News Chicago Restaurants Rally Against Trump Immigra... 3 hr Truth 8
I think she is pissed. From a few years ago. 4 hr SENIORS READ-THIS 6
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr RACE 105,131
Look at Minn. Maine & Michigan. 4 hr OUTLAW-HALAL-FOODS 13
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr RACE 10,582

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages