Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63582 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: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38531 Aug 27, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so sorry....multiple proxies...but that does not change the fine print:
No, but your utter cluelessness demonstrates your total lack of qualification to say anything meaningful about the fine print.

You are a moron cutting and pasting from denier blogs.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38532 Aug 27, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but your utter cluelessness demonstrates your total lack of qualification to say anything meaningful about the fine print.
You are a moron cutting and pasting from denier blogs.
You are the moron. I copied and pasted from your own link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38533 Aug 27, 2013
BECOME INV wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I suppose the gover'ment and corporate execs are immune to them.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#38534 Aug 27, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Just so you'll know, I struck a blow for better fuel efficiency this morning. All because of you, lol.
Got a petition from Consumer's Union. I'm forwarding it to you for your signature.
"The clock is ticking on a clean-car plan that will dramatically slash pollution in our cities the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off our roads!
The Environmental Protection Agency has only four months to finalize a plan that would clean up our gasoline so it doesn't emit so much pollution when it's burned. And with a new EPA administrator now on board, we have a great opportunity to get it moving!
Of course, Big Oil is out in force trying to kill it. They don't want to make needed changes in their refineries, and they expect us to live with the consequences -- tens of thousands of more respiratory problems in our kids and adults, and the resulting environmental problems.
I just sent an email of support to the new EPA director to finalize this plan now. Will you do the same? You can learn more and send your email by going to Consumers Union's website.
http://bit.ly/Clearer_Air
Thank you!
Now then, see? I do care. And you should too.
lol
We're going to pay for the "eeded changes in their refineries" at the pump, not just big oil; consumers don't want these expensive new fuel regulations.

We've seen the horror of drive by starvation and ethanol mandates. Our economy is broken enough as is. We don't need expensive new gas regulations.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#38537 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.
Kristy,

I am not one to engage in mudslinging.

I must admit that I am not clear as to what you are saying. Can you please expand on your statement so I have a clearer idea of what you are saying.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38539 Aug 27, 2013
Good article on why Krusty & Co think the way they do. Also another one one on the role Fox etc plays in influencing that captive audience with filtered comment in forming those opinions.

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-...

http://inhabitat.com/research-shows-fox-news-...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38540 Aug 27, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
Kristy,
I am not one to engage in mudslinging.
I must admit that I am not clear as to what you are saying. Can you please expand on your statement so I have a clearer idea of what you are saying.
There are 6 different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios described in the IPCC AR4 report. Each scenario has its own prediction for temperature increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Asse...

For the 2007 AR4 A2 scenerio, which was used in the link you provided, this is the prediction for this scenario: Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F), which would be 0.2 C per decade for the lowest prediction and best estimate would be 0.34 C.

The observed warming was 0.06 C. That’s not even close to the lowest prediction of 0.2 C per decade, let alone the best estimate prediction of 0.34 C per decade.

But the A2 scenario is not the worst case scenario, which is where we are at according to the paper you had previously posted.

From your article:

In 2007, the IPCC predicted a ‘worst-case scenario’ that would see rapid industrialisation cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by two parts per million each year. Parts per million (ppm) is a unit of concentration used to measure pollutants. Brierley said atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 385 ppm last year [2008] and was now rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year...‘This really august body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said these are the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide increase and we are above that already.

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

So now we move to the worst-case scenario which is Scenario A1FI with a prediction of: Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F). which would be 0.24 C per decade for the lowest prediction and the best estimate would be 0.4 C per decade.

So now the IPCC prediction is off even more, so not even close to the lowest prediction of 0.24 C per decade, let alone the best estimate prediction of 0.4 C per decade with observed warming of 0.06 C.

And I’m not really sure why the person who compared all these predictions used 2000-2012 instead of a 10-year period. And I’m not sure where this person got the projected rate at 0.18 per decade as a prediction.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38541 Aug 27, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Good article on why Krusty & Co think the way they do. Also another one one on the role Fox etc plays in influencing that captive audience with filtered comment in forming those opinions.
http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-...
http://inhabitat.com/research-shows-fox-news-...
LOL….there are many reasons to doubt the alarmist view of global warming, but I have to say one of the main reasons to doubt the alarmism is the insane craziness displayed by the so-called people who tell me they are all about the scientific evidence.

From 350.org . led by Bill McKibbon:

Petition to the WMO to name hurricanes after deniers: As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.

Seriously? These are supposed to be the adults in the room? These are supposed to be the scientists to look up to and take seriously? First off there is no scientific evidence that climate change is creating increasingly frequent storms. What is extreme weather? There is no scientific evidence this is a new normal. When the alarmist science comes down to witch burning, it is no longer science.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#38542 Aug 27, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

The observed warming was 0.06 C. That’s not even close to the lowest prediction of 0.2 C per decade, let alone the best estimate prediction of 0.34 C per decade.
I do not understand where you are getting the 0.06 C per decade.

Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38543 Aug 28, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Good article on why Krusty & Co think the way they do. Also another one one on the role Fox etc plays in influencing that captive audience with filtered comment in forming those opinions.
http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-...
http://inhabitat.com/research-shows-fox-news-...
From your first link:

"Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us."

A phony premise... no reason to read any further.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38544 Aug 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but your utter cluelessness demonstrates your total lack of qualification to say anything meaningful about the fine print.
You are a moron cutting and pasting from denier blogs.
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the moron. I copied and pasted from your own link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...
Liar.
You copied and pasted from this denier blog.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-in...

Not only did you copy exactly the same paragraph:
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarius...so we are comparing tree proxies to 20th century instrumental data. What does this prove? Did you read the fine print?
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. 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.
You then repasted it highlighting exactly the same words:
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38545 Aug 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Liar.
You copied and pasted from this denier blog.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-in...
Not only did you copy exactly the same paragraph:
<quoted text>
You then repasted it highlighting exactly the same words:
<quoted text>
Further proof you are a moron. Now a non-moron would have gone back to the link that you posted and at least read it to see if what I copied and pasted was in the link YOU posted. But, no, you being a moron, did not do that. You, the moron, called me a liar instead.

So, MORON, go back to this link you posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

No go to the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Now copy and paste what it says and let's see if it's the same thing I copied and pasted.

Bottom line, don't post things you don't read and then call me a liar when I highlight items from the posts and don't call me a liar because I took the time to actually read what you all post.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38546 Aug 28, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not understand where you are getting the 0.06 C per decade.
Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I got the 0.06 C from the link you posted:

The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection.

So basically same advice to you as to FG. If you expect me to read the posts you posted, at least have the courtesy to first read them yourselves.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38547 Aug 28, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
From your first link:
"Today the scientific community is in almost total agreement that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, and that this represents a huge threat to the planet and to us."
This is the concensus opinion of the climate research community.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
A phony premise... no reason to read any further.
Fact is not premise. And you do need to read further if you want to debate. Your ignorance of facts is not an argument. It is a refusal to argue in the face of defeat.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38548 Aug 28, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Further proof you are a moron. Now a non-moron would have gone back to the link that you posted and at least read it to see if what I copied and pasted was in the link YOU posted. But, no, you being a moron, did not do that. You, the moron, called me a liar instead.
So, MORON, go back to this link you posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...
No go to the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. Now copy and paste what it says and let's see if it's the same thing I copied and pasted.
Bottom line, don't post things you don't read and then call me a liar when I highlight items from the posts and don't call me a liar because I took the time to actually read what you all post.
No it wasn't the same thing, because you highlighted a section of the text, a section that wasn't highlighted in the original, but was in the denier blog- exactly the same section.

Proof positive that you don't do your own thinking, but run to the denier blogs for a cut 'n paste response.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38549 Aug 28, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No it wasn't the same thing, because you highlighted a section of the text, a section that wasn't highlighted in the original, but was in the denier blog- exactly the same section.
Proof positive that you don't do your own thinking, but run to the denier blogs for a cut 'n paste response.
Again, MORON....

Your article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...

Now go to the 2nd paragraph and copy and paste the entire paragraph starting with the first sentence. I got all the information from YOUR LINK. Even at this point, you refuse to read your link.

Now go to that 2nd paragraph and copy and paste it and post it here. Let's see if it's the same as what I posted earlier.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38550 Aug 28, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I got the 0.06 C from the link you posted:
The IPCC AR4 Scenario A2 projected rate of warming from 2000 to 2012 was 0.18°C per decade. This is within the uncertainty range of the observed rate of warming (0.06 ± 0.16°C) per decade since 2000, though the observed warming has likely been lower than the AR4 projection.
So basically same advice to you as to FG. If you expect me to read the posts you posted, at least have the courtesy to first read them yourselves.
You are asking for a lot and you're not going to get it from this crowd.

You've noticed that they do not read what they post and certainly will not read what you post. They don't dispute the science, they denigrate the author. Denying the author credibility relieves them of the necessity of reading and understanding the work.

In the end, it's not about what they believe, it's about what you know and your ability to recognize what you don't know.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38551 Aug 28, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL….there are many reasons to doubt the alarmist view of global warming, but I have to say one of the main reasons to doubt the alarmism is the insane craziness displayed by the so-called people who tell me they are all about the scientific evidence.
From 350.org . led by Bill McKibbon:
Petition to the WMO to name hurricanes after deniers: As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.
Seriously? These are supposed to be the adults in the room? These are supposed to be the scientists to look up to and take seriously? First off there is no scientific evidence that climate change is creating increasingly frequent storms. What is extreme weather? There is no scientific evidence this is a new normal. When the alarmist science comes down to witch burning, it is no longer science.
Great post!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38552 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We're going to pay for the "eeded changes in their refineries" at the pump, not just big oil; consumers don't want these expensive new fuel regulations.
We've seen the horror of drive by starvation and ethanol mandates. Our economy is broken enough as is. We don't need expensive new gas regulations.
Sounds familiar. Kinda like all the screaming about Obama destroying the economy:

"American manufacturers are doing better than many of their competitors around the world as increased spending by U.S. businesses and a revival in global trade creates more demand for their products.

The Institute for Supply Management said Friday that its gauge of U.S. factory activity expanded in February for the third straight month to 54.2—continuing the biggest jump in manufacturing activity since the economic recovery started in July 2009. A reading above 50 indicates growth. Exports jumped to a nine-month high, while new orders and order backlogs, both gauges of future business, rose sharply.

The report is evidence that increased spending by U.S. businesses and consumers, the housing recovery and an uptick in global trade are helping America's factories, which were a key engine for the nation's recovery three years ago but weakened recently amid a global economic slowdown. The report also suggests that manufacturers aren't nervous about the looming impact of the "sequester," the $85 billion in across-the-board government spending cuts that kicked in Friday.

Separate reports on Friday showed that Americans are still spending despite higher taxes, while confidence among consumers rose in February to its highest level since November. "
-Wall Street Journal

Of course, you're just as wrong on fuel prices, which have been dropping lately.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38553 Aug 28, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL….there are many reasons to doubt the alarmist view of global warming, but I have to say one of the main reasons to doubt the alarmism is the insane craziness displayed by the so-called people who tell me they are all about the scientific evidence.
From 350.org . led by Bill McKibbon:
Petition to the WMO to name hurricanes after deniers: As scientific evidence shows that climate change is creating increasingly frequent and devastating storms, and with climate scientists declaring these extreme weather events as the new normal, we propose a new naming system. A system that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy.
Seriously? These are supposed to be the adults in the room? These are supposed to be the scientists to look up to and take seriously? First off there is no scientific evidence that climate change is creating increasingly frequent storms. What is extreme weather? There is no scientific evidence this is a new normal. When the alarmist science comes down to witch burning, it is no longer science.
Never could understand why they started naming hurricanes after men. They were apply named after women for years. There is nothing like the fury of women.

Scientifically, the more energy in the atmosphere, the more violent the storms....

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) 2 min Injudgement 1,509,859
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Orange County Coast 239,608
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr SweLL GirL 10,504
Obama has LEAK under sink. 8 hr Troy the true Plu... 41
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Dudley 8,077
White country boys know how to shoot! 10 hr Ashole Bahboon 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr CrunchyBacon 105,065

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages