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
36,241 - 36,260 of 46,358 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38608 Aug 29, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Keep in mind that China is blatantly ignoring the huge carbon footprint they are increasing every day. They are right next to the Pacific. Their polutants travel eastward and yet the ocean is cooling? Why? Maybe because they are filtering out the suns rays which in turn do not heat up the water or land! Gasp! That makes Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi's theory and models correct!
http://www.examiner.com/article/hungarian-phy...
Not so, China recognizes they have a problem. Get up to date.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/n...

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#38609 Aug 29, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Um, scientists just called the above statemnt hogwash as of yesterday! Plus, your physics statement is, well, slightly ignorant.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/a...
"The system is now in a cooling phase, scientists have noted, which could last for years. The last such phase was from the 1940s to the 1970s." -This staement alone makes me laugh and remember the coiming "mini-ice-age" I was taught in school.
Your climate change, a.k.a. global warming bull crap is nothing more than a money making, control freak's fantasy.
"Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in dampening global warming in recent years, scientists said on Wednesday."
Ah, you knuckle dragging moron. Did you bother to read the entire article, or did you just read the headline?

Xie said: "We don't know precisely when we're going to come out of [the hiatus] but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

Which school did you go to that that a mini-ice age was coming? A school that used Time magazine as a textbook?

If you actually believe that short term trends are more important than long term trends it only proves that you have no scientific background whatsoever.

Apparently you feel that it is OK to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into "defense" - more that the next thirteen countries combined - but it is not OK to try and save the environment for future generations.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38610 Aug 29, 2013
The canyon has never been seen by humans, who didn't exist four million years ago. If the Greenland ice sheet melts completely it will raise global sea level by 7 metres and swamp many major cities...

Say what?

The canyon was discovered by researchers working on one of the great scientific puzzles – how much will the Greenland ice sheet contribute to sea level rise if, as predicted, the Arctic continues to warm as greenhouse gases increase?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Wow. Prof Curry must be all ears considering this area was her decade-long study earlier. You know her first degree was a BS in geography.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38611 Aug 29, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Were these?
"So you see Al is in psychic pain and I guess it wouldn't be so bad if he was the only one flying around in private jets and riding around in limos and not cutting his overseas trips, but there are thousands and thousands of Al Gores, so it does add up. In Copenhagen, these thousands of Al Gores came via 140 private jets, and unknown number of commercial jets, and used 1200 limos. They do this every year and that's only counting that 1 yearly conference and not all the other conferences they all fly around to all year round."
Yes those are my words based on the psychiatric analysis of Al Gore presented by the article OZritz posted:

The article stated this:

But for those of us who understand that climate change is a problem yet make little effort to cut the number of overseas trips we make or the amount of meat we consume, neither apathy nor denial really explains the dissonance between our actions and beliefs. Lertzman has come to the conclusion that this is not because of apathy — a lack of feeling — but because of the simple fact that we care an overwhelming amount about both the planet and our way of life, and we find that conflict too painful to bear. Our apparent apathy is just a defense mechanism in the face of this psychic pain.

Al Gore finds himself in psychic pain because he cares about the climate but just can't make that little effort to cut down on his number of overseas trips.

And like I said there are 1000's of Al Gores that can't cut down on their overseas trips. Here are the statistics of the carbon footprint from the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference:

The Copenhagen climate talks will generate more carbon emissions than any previous climate conference, equivalent to the annual output of over half a million Ethiopians, figures commissioned by hosts Denmark show. Delegates, journalists, activists and observers from almost 200 countries have gathered at the Dec 7-18 summit and their travel and work will create 46,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide, most of it from their flights.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/14/us-...

So for a few day's conference, these people will generate the equivalent annual output of over 500,000 Ethiopians. Just from 1 conference. And then they have the gall to tell Africa, they aren't allowed to improve their standard of living with the use of fossil fuels.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38612 Aug 29, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did someone hijack your name? You're making sense today.
Of course, the goal now is not to throw fossils out and struggle to make renewables do everything. The plan should be to transition to other sources of power, but to do it as quickly as possible BECAUSE international oil markets are often shaky, BECAUSE we don't have enough oil in the ground to cover more than a few years at our present rate of use, BECAUSE oil and coal are dirty and dangerous, and BECAUSE they will only increase in price over the long haul, BECAUSE nuclear is probably dead for the time being.
Again, this is all good. But there are quite a few problems with your post. You said that the goal is not to throw out fossil fuels and struggle to make renewables everything, but it is your goal. We are shutting down coal plants, permits are not being approved for drilling in the deep oceans, the Keystone Pipeline is not being approved, we have no big plans for nuclear energy, and fracking is coming under attack. So we are being set up to crash without having any kind of reliable energy resource to fall back on.

You said we don't have enough oil in the ground. Where did you get that information?

A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves." Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels. "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO).

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-f...

Running from Los Angeles to San Francisco, California's Monterey Shale is thought to contain more oil than North Dakota's Bakken and Texas's Eagle Ford -- both scenes of an oil boom that's created thousands of jobs and boosted U.S. oil production to the highest rate in over a decade. In fact, the Monterey is thought to hold over 400 billion barrels of oil, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. That's nearly half the conventional oil in all of Saudi Arabia. The United States consumes about 19 million barrels of oil a day. "Four hundred billion barrels, that doesn't escape anyone in this businesses," said Stephen Trammel, energy research director at IHS.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/14/news/economy/...

These are just a few sites where huge amounts of oil have been found. There are many more we are sitting on. We could become energy independent and then not have to depend on the Middle East and all their turmoil and instead of energy prices increasing, they would decrease.

By the way, gas prices yesterday here 3.35, today 3.49.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38613 Aug 29, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on the judgement icon Mr.AKA Bozo attributed to your post it is reasonable to conclude that taking responsibility for one's OWN carbon footprint is something he is against.
I know. It makes no sense how they preach us to lessen our carbon footprint because it is because of our lifestyles that the world will boil, but Al Gore and the thousands and thousands of people like Al Gore, get a pass. Seriously, they can't video-conference?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38614 Aug 29, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Um, scientists just called the above statemnt hogwash as of yesterday! Plus, your physics statement is, well, slightly ignorant.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/a...
"The system is now in a cooling phase, scientists have noted, which could last for years. The last such phase was from the 1940s to the 1970s." -This staement alone makes me laugh and remember the coiming "mini-ice-age" I was taught in school.
Your climate change, a.k.a. global warming bull crap is nothing more than a money making, control freak's fantasy.
"Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in dampening global warming in recent years, scientists said on Wednesday."
WHAAATT???? CO2 is not the primary driver of warming?...but, but..it's unequivocal.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38615 Aug 29, 2013
No Warming wrote:
Kristy, if you haven't read this you may find it interesting. Joe Bastardi says Dr. Bill Gray predicted a warming trend back in the 1970s.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05...
Bastardi and Gray have been out there saying these things for a while, but you do know they are witches and have to be burned. Bastardi has been right on his analysis of the droughts and showing how we are in a time like the 1950s. His analyses are always very interesting along with Gray's analyses.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38616 Aug 29, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all koolaid drinker. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. However, as you know, folks didn't volunteer to quit using freon, they didn't quit using asbestos brake pads voluntarily, they didn't refuse to burn leaded gasoline, and so on. Our economic system is based upon cheap fossil fuels. Individuals will not change that with individual actions. Things like our transportation system depend upon the internal compustion engine. We cannot voluntarily guit using products that are distributed by fossil fuels. You know this but simply want to make noise.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions except for climate scientists. No matter how much they don't understand they never take responsibility for their botched predictions and botched climate models and then from all their botched science. So because of their incompetence, we have to have the government raise prices on everything so we change our behavior.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38617 Aug 29, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you knuckle dragging moron. Did you bother to read the entire article, or did you just read the headline?
Xie said: "We don't know precisely when we're going to come out of [the hiatus] but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
LMAO.....Every one of these climate scientists put this on their papers:

'but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

No matter what they find out, they put in that statement. This is the only science that I know of that one thing always remains constant, CO2, and never changes no matter what new discovery is made. It's weird, huh? So now we have a paper that shows the models work really well with the PDO, almost exactly. But that doesn't change the fact that CO2 will be the primary driver. And psssst....don't bring up that our CO2 models are completely wrong and never caught this standstill....the climate will still continue to warm, we just know it, trust us. You know like we said in 2009 that global warming would be roaring back by now.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38619 Aug 29, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Um, scientists just called the above statemnt hogwash as of yesterday! Plus, your physics statement is, well, slightly ignorant.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/a...
"The system is now in a cooling phase, scientists have noted, which could last for years. The last such phase was from the 1940s to the 1970s." -This staement alone makes me laugh and remember the coiming "mini-ice-age" I was taught in school.
Your climate change, a.k.a. global warming bull crap is nothing more than a money making, control freak's fantasy.
"Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in dampening global warming in recent years, scientists said on Wednesday."
I love it when some idiot trumpets that global warming has ended and then uses a site or a quote that directly contradicts his trumpeting:

The "system" to which they refer is the El Nino/La Nina cycle, part of "one of the world's biggest ocean circulatory systems, the Pacific decadal oscillation. It has nothing to do with a mini-ice-age.

"Cooling waters in the tropical Pacific Ocean appear to be a major factor in "DAMPENING" global warming in recent years, scientists said on Wednesday."

"dampen"-Websters New Collegiate: "to check or diminish the activity or vigor of." Not "stop". Not "reverse".

"Their work is a big step forward in helping to solve the greatest puzzle of current climate change research – why global average surface temperatures, WHILE STILL ON AN UPWARD TREND, have risen more slowly in the past 10 to fifteen years than previously."

Try again, genius.

But first, learn to read.

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

#38620 Aug 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO.....Every one of these climate scientists put this on their papers:
'but we know that over the timescale of several decades, the climate will continue to warm as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
No matter what they find out, they put in that statement. This is the only science that I know of that one thing always remains constant, CO2, and never changes no matter what new discovery is made. It's weird, huh? So now we have a paper that shows the models work really well with the PDO, almost exactly. But that doesn't change the fact that CO2 will be the primary driver. And psssst....don't bring up that our CO2 models are completely wrong and never caught this standstill....the climate will still continue to warm, we just know it, trust us. You know like we said in 2009 that global warming would be roaring back by now.
You should look at this graph very carefully:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...

As you can see there are periods of temperature increase and temperature decrease. To say that the period of temperature decrease in the 50s meant an end to global warming is absurd.

It is the physical properties of CO2 that drives the scientific consensus. It isn't going to go away.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38621 Aug 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is responsible for their own actions except for climate scientists. No matter how much they don't understand they never take responsibility for their botched predictions and botched climate models and then from all their botched science. So because of their incompetence, we have to have the government raise prices on everything so we change our behavior.
Nice sashay to the right! Not what we were discussing. You and your denier sister have always had the ability to divert the discussion when it gets too hot for comfort.

But even at that, let us in on what they botched. Don't try to say they botched because it is a little cooler today than it was yesterday. There is no doubt that it is warmer this century than it has been since records began.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38622 Aug 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, this is all good. But there are quite a few problems with your post. You said that the goal is not to throw out fossil fuels and struggle to make renewables everything, but it is your goal. We are shutting down coal plants, permits are not being approved for drilling in the deep oceans, the Keystone Pipeline is not being approved, we have no big plans for nuclear energy, and fracking is coming under attack. So we are being set up to crash without having any kind of reliable energy resource to fall back on.
You said we don't have enough oil in the ground. Where did you get that information?
A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that if half of the oil bound up in the rock of the Green River Formation could be recovered it would be "equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves." Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels. "In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/american-oil-f...
Running from Los Angeles to San Francisco, California's Monterey Shale is thought to contain more oil than North Dakota's Bakken and Texas's Eagle Ford -- both scenes of an oil boom that's created thousands of jobs and boosted U.S. oil production to the highest rate in over a decade. In fact, the Monterey is thought to hold over 400 billion barrels of oil, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. That's nearly half the conventional oil in all of Saudi Arabia. The United States consumes about 19 million barrels of oil a day. "Four hundred billion barrels, that doesn't escape anyone in this businesses," said Stephen Trammel, energy research director at IHS.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/14/news/economy/...
These are just a few sites where huge amounts of oil have been found. There are many more we are sitting on. We could become energy independent and then not have to depend on the Middle East and all their turmoil and instead of energy prices increasing, they would decrease.
By the way, gas prices yesterday here 3.35, today 3.49.
Nice try, but again you resort to hysteria. The real skinny:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-the-...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38623 Aug 29, 2013
More on oil shale.
http://peakoilmatters.com/2010/01/25/a-brief-...

Not gonna solve our energy problems....
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38624 Aug 29, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>To DENSE:

You should look at this graph very carefully:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...
As you can see there are periods of temperature increase and temperature decrease. To say that the period of temperature decrease in the 50s meant an end to global warming is absurd.
It is the physical properties of CO2 that drives the scientific consensus. It isn't going to go away.
HEADLINE

Preparations for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) enter final stage

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. It will be composed of three working group reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR). The outline and content can be found in the AR5 reference document and SYR Scoping document.

The Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:


WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden

WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan

WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany

AR5 Synthesis Report (SYR)
27-31 October 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark

More than 830 authors are involved in writing the reports. Several sets of Lead Author meetings have been held and the expert review of the Working Group contributions has been completed. The IPCC is now in the final stages of the review process.

http://www.ipcc.ch/
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38625 Aug 29, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice sashay to the right! Not what we were discussing. You and your denier sister have always had the ability to divert the discussion when it gets too hot for comfort.
But even at that, let us in on what they botched. Don't try to say they botched because it is a little cooler today than it was yesterday. There is no doubt that it is warmer this century than it has been since records began.
How many times do I have to say I agree it is warmer? DUHHH. No one is arguing that point. The point, is that AGW science says warming will happen at an alarming rate because of an increase in CO2 and terrible, terrible things will happen. Here are some of the things that have been botched:

Surprise, Antarctic ice not melting, actually increasing.

Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, in fact about half of the volume of the Himalayan glaciers is actually growing.

Surprise, 30% less ice melting from glaciers, ice caps, and mountaintops.

Climate models never predicted a standstill for 15 years.

Surprise….mysterious drop in water vapor in the stratosphere.

Surprise the oceans have a bigger effect on temperatures than thought.

No increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, fires, extreme weather.

Snow was thought to be a thing of the past.

Now we just have roving hot spots and roving rain, which is really just weather, so not sure how any one region can have a change in climate if these hot spots are just randomly moving around.

CO2 at worst case scenario, but temperatures at a standstill.

Climate sensitivity less than thought.

The seas are not rising at an alarming rate.

The Arctic still isn't ice free, even though it was predicted by NASA that the Arctic would be mostly ice free this year, which in fact was the shortest melt season on record for the Arctic.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38626 Aug 29, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
You should look at this graph very carefully:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...
As you can see there are periods of temperature increase and temperature decrease. To say that the period of temperature decrease in the 50s meant an end to global warming is absurd.
It is the physical properties of CO2 that drives the scientific consensus. It isn't going to go away.
Based on the IPCC goal of limiting warming to 2C this century the graph indicates we're under the limit. Obviously 2C per 100 years averages .2 per decade, there's only one 10 year period that happened, indicated in that graph.

It also shows the current pause, with the 5 year average line you can see its been over 12 years. It'll take some extremely warm years, and soon, for that graph to indicate 2C warming this century.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38627 Aug 29, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>HEADLINE
Preparations for the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) enter final stage
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) will provide an update of knowledge on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. It will be composed of three working group reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR). The outline and content can be found in the AR5 reference document and SYR Scoping document.
The Working Group (WG) Reports and Synthesis Report will be completed in 2013/2014:
WG I: The Physical Science Basis
23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan
WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change
7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany
AR5 Synthesis Report (SYR)
27-31 October 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark
More than 830 authors are involved in writing the reports. Several sets of Lead Author meetings have been held and the expert review of the Working Group contributions has been completed. The IPCC is now in the final stages of the review process.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
A big whoopdy-doo.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38628 Aug 29, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
You should look at this graph very carefully:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...
As you can see there are periods of temperature increase and temperature decrease. To say that the period of temperature decrease in the 50s meant an end to global warming is absurd.
It is the physical properties of CO2 that drives the scientific consensus. It isn't going to go away.
Again, to you I say, no one is disputing the warming. We came out of the Little Ice Age and as Fun Facts stated in an earlier post the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum. It was at the highest levels recorded in the last 400 years and in the top 10% of all activity reconstructed with proxy data during the Holocene and the PDO was in the warming phase the last 30 years. So of course the trend has been up.

But here we are at a standstill and now papers are coming out saying it's the 30-year cooling phase of the PDO causing the standstill. But you have to ask yourself if the cooling phase of PDO is causing the standstill and it could even cause some cooling, only time will tell, wouldn't that mean that the warming phase of the PDO caused most of the warmth combined with the sun in the late 20th century? I mean the PDO doesn't go dormant in the warming phase and tell CO2 to take over heating up the planet does it? The warming hasn't been near what the climate models have been so all over the place and revised and no model has predicted the 15 year standstill and that would be because they have overestimated the CO2, underestimated the PDO and the sun.

Hypothetically, if temperatures trend down in the next 2 decades, what would you think at that point?

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr NMx 1,100,983
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,662
Ping G20 Irons Compared With Cheap G15 Irons (May '12) 1 hr lucy 2
chief keef 1 hr sd 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr voice of peace 68,393
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL 69,030
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 3 hr bing 9662 51
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 177,461
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••