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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
36,161 - 36,180 of 46,292 Comments Last updated 11 hrs ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, 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

Oviedo, 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 Niño 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

Oviedo, 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

Houston, 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

Oviedo, 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

Houston, 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!

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

Oviedo, 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

Wichita, KS

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Kailua, 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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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

Kailua, 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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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

Toronto, 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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 18 min danetoo 68,352
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 26 min STEFANO COLONNA 68,948
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 32 min Corrupt Democrats 1,902
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 32 min Obskeptic 177,350
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 42 min Grey Ghost 1,099,857
The monkey in the room 47 min hands on AR 2
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr D-U-H 49,462
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 hr Phil Indeblanc 97,916
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••