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

Full story: Newsday 47,501
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#38503 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...and if the models are correct!!! The models have never been correct. You are stating those that claimed sea ice melt had stopped are liars, but yet what do you call scientists who predicted an ice-free Arctic this summer? Or what do you call scientists who told us that BOTH poles would melt due to global warming, but then these same scientists now state that climate models always predicted Antarctic ice to grow? I hope you call them liars and fools too. What about all the predictions that no climate models predicted a 15-year pause, but now these scientists say it was predicted. I hope you call them liars and fools too. According to a paper posted by The Integral, climate scientists state we are not at business as usual emissions but at worst case scenario levels of CO2 and the temperatures should be rising at the highest predicted level, but are not. So you need to call them liars and fools too.
The predictions are all over the place. Because now you are saying they are predicting 2014 and 2015 are likely to be record years and the latest predictions I have seen are calling for a standstill for about 20 years. So which is it? It sounds like you have all your bases covered.
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.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38504 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.
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?
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38505 Aug 26, 2013
Justin wrote:
Old "Farmers Almanac calling for bitter cold winter."
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
... and with an 80% accuracy over 197 years.
What's the accuracy for those global warming models?
This is a perfect example of the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority"

Climate models are less reliable then Ben's Book!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38506 Aug 26, 2013
Justin wrote:
Farmers Almanac calling for bitter cold winter.
Where? In UK?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38507 Aug 26, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
Justin wrote:
Old "Farmers Almanac calling for bitter cold winter."
<quoted text>
This is a perfect example of the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority"
Climate models are less reliable then Ben's Book!
Ben's Book? I'm not familiar with such a climate science book.

Which authority are you appealing to in this post? There's much s and also b, denier scum.

Also, what reliability level are you interested as a bs'er in climate models?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38508 Aug 26, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
... and with an 80% accuracy over 197 years.
What's the accuracy for those global warming models?
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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, 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

Wichita, KS

#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

Toronto, 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

Oklahoma City, 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

Houston, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Minneapolis, 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

Las Cruces, NM

#38521 Aug 27, 2013
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38522 Aug 27, 2013

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) 11 min John Galt 1,127,202
Rattlesnake Logic 14 min i need a bump to 22
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 15 min KiMare 50,649
food for thought 18 min reality is a crutch 2
John Wick Brings Stylish Bloody Mayhem to Chica... 1 hr Culture Auditor 1
Amy 10-24 1 hr Sublime1 14
2 dead, 7 hurt in shootings since Friday evening 2 hr reality is a crutch 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr jacques Ottawa 179,464
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 ]