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
36,341 - 36,360 of 46,210 Comments Last updated 16 hrs ago

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38669
Aug 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
LOL...so sorry I'm wearing all of you out.
Tiresome is not a virtue.

Since: Jul 13

Neptune, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38670
Aug 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
Antarctica Ice is staying about the same, the reason for this is well covered in the State of the Climate Report, But, briefly it's say's:
The Antarctica continent is huge, most of the Ice set's on Land, unlike the Sea Ice of the artic. Antarctica is so big it creates an environment of it's own. It is surrounded by a regimen of rotating storms that essentially isolate it from the rest of the world's climate influences. That said, the overall condition of the Antarctica continent is consistent with a warming planet.

The Himalayan glaciers are retreating, not as fast as once predicted, but retreating non the less.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylea...

In the Artic the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Shows the summer ice extent has declined by 13% each decade since the ice was first monitored in 1979.

97% of the Greenland Icecap shows sign's of duress (melting).

The lack of or increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, fires, extreme weather. Does not really concern me.

Temperatures are NOT at a stand still where it counts .. in the Artic ..

The temperature range that we enjoy today, a range that allows us to create habitat's, grow food and survive is a relatively small range. A change of 30 or 40 degrees in any direction would be the end of life as we know it. Tempatures are steadly riseing, including the last fifteen years. Personally I've never heard the phrase "snow is a thing of the past" Why anyone would deny the obvious is beyond me.

I have been to Antarctica, the Artic and every Ocean on the face of the planet as well as most continents.

Last year I sailed a small sailboat North of Canada, talked with other ship Captains, Amateur9846 sailors, fisherman and the local population.

As we sit at our puters and cut&paste bullshit the planet is dying, like Nero did.

Bligh
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38671
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Fifth sentence? There is no fifth sentence. You here confirm that you are drinking.
I wonder how you are because you cannot even count. You referred to five sentences of mine when there are only four.
OMG...and you call me dense. LOL
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38672
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
Antarctica Ice is staying about the same, the reason for this is well covered in the State of the Climate Report, But, briefly it's say's:
The Antarctica continent is huge, most of the Ice set's on Land, unlike the Sea Ice of the artic. Antarctica is so big it creates an environment of it's own. It is surrounded by a regimen of rotating storms that essentially isolate it from the rest of the world's climate influences. That said, the overall condition of the Antarctica continent is consistent with a warming planet.
The Himalayan glaciers are retreating, not as fast as once predicted, but retreating non the less.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylea...
In the Artic the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Shows the summer ice extent has declined by 13% each decade since the ice was first monitored in 1979.
97% of the Greenland Icecap shows sign's of duress (melting).
The lack of or increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, fires, extreme weather. Does not really concern me.
Temperatures are NOT at a stand still where it counts .. in the Artic ..
The temperature range that we enjoy today, a range that allows us to create habitat's, grow food and survive is a relatively small range. A change of 30 or 40 degrees in any direction would be the end of life as we know it. Tempatures are steadly riseing, including the last fifteen years. Personally I've never heard the phrase "snow is a thing of the past" Why anyone would deny the obvious is beyond me.
I have been to Antarctica, the Artic and every Ocean on the face of the planet as well as most continents.
Last year I sailed a small sailboat North of Canada, talked with other ship Captains, Amateur9846 sailors, fisherman and the local population.
As we sit at our puters and cut&paste bullshit the planet is dying, like Nero did.
Bligh
I just love it when someone pops in and doesn't even know what was being referred to in my post. My post was about botched predictions and science. I suggest you read my comment to BOZO aka Dr. Bozo PhD regarding that post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

Oh and by the way, you need to update your talking points on the Antarctic sea ice. I realize it's hard to keep up, but now the talking point is that the AGW scientists always predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase. So you can either go along with that or start arguing with the AGW scientists, it's up to you how you want to handle that.

"Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-August reached a record or near-record level high at 18.7 million square kilometers, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center External Non-U.S. government site. The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent.

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenth...

kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38673
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Since Keven Trenberth has redefined AGW as roving hot spots, i.e. weather, I thought I would just share some roving cold spots:

Brazil:
Snow in 113 Santa Catarina cities.“The record snow for sure is historic , because never in our files , we have the record of the phenomenon in so many cities,” says weatherman Marcelo Martins.

Peru:
Peru’s government has declared a state of emergency in parts of the southern Andean region of Puno hit with the coldest temperatures in a decade, daily El Comercio reported. President Ollanta Humala announced the emergency for seven provinces in Puno – Carabaya, Sandia, Lampa, San Antonio de Putina, Melgar, Puno and El Collao.
Hundreds of families have been affected and more than 250,000 alpacas have died due to freezing temperatures and snow storms. Passengers on buses running between Puno and Arequipa were forced to wait some eight to 10 hours on the icy highways at temperatures of minus 15 degrees Celsius.

Chile:
Residents of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, a desert city 750 miles (1,200 km) north of Santiago, say the weekend snow was the heaviest in three decades.

Iceland:
A very well organised and unusual storm for late August.”“…this looks to be a very well organised and unusual storm for late August even though this fairly high latitude can and does seen deep lows at this time of year. It’s the cold that comes with it which could well grab weather headlines this weekend bringing a rare late August snowstorm to Iceland.

Tasmania:
Skiers rejoice.
While some snow is not that unusual in Tasmania at this time of the year the temperatures were unusually low with it being the coldest August day in 41 years for the capital , Hobart At -0.4C, Hobart was one of the coldest places in Tasmania, but the freezing temperatures were widespread — Launceston fell to -2.5C and Liawenee -7.6C.
And while the icy start made life miserable for many, skiers rejoiced.“It’s absolutely fantastic, the best cover we’ve had for years,” Felicity Foot, operator of ski equipment hire firm Ben Lomond Snow Sports, said of the snow.

Two decades of unprecedented global warming has left Arctic ice almost the same as 20 years ago in 1993.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/29...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38674
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the melting is pretty well balanced with the accumulation. This is to be expected because of increased atmospheric water vapor increases the snowfall.
The temporal and spatial variability of the
SMB (Surface Mass Balance)over the previous 800 yr indicates that SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and do not exhibit an overall clear trend. This result is in accordance with the results presented by Monaghan et al.(2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr.
So it is not gaining.
The 'rest of the story'

"5 Conclusions
A total of 67 SMB records from the AIS over the last 800 yr
were analysed to assess the temporal variability of accu-
mulation rates. The temporal and spatial variability of the
SMB over the previous 800 yr indicates that SMB changes
over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and do not
exhibit an overall clear trend. This result is in accordance
with the results presented by Monaghan et al.(2006), which
demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB
over the past 50 yr.

However, a clear increase in accumulation
of more than 10 %(> 300 kg m &#8722;2 yr &#8722;1) has occurred in high-
SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East
Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.

The decadal records of
previous centuries show that the observed increase in accu-
mulation is not anomalous at the continental scale, that high-
accumulation periods also occurred during the 1370s and
1610s, and that the current SMB is not significantly differ-
ent from that over the last 800 yr.

The differences in behaviour between the coastal/ice di-
vide sites and the rest of Antarctica could be explained by the
higher frequency of blocking anticyclones, which increase
precipitation at coastal sites and lead to the advection of
moist air at the highest areas, while blowing snow and/or
erosion have reduced the SMB at windy sites.

Eight hundred
years of stacked SMB records mimic the total solar irradi-
ance during the 13th and 18th centuries, suggesting a link
between the southern Tropical Pacific and the atmospheric
circulation in Antarctica through the generation and propa-
gation of a large-scale atmospheric wave train.

Minor changes in the earth’s radiation budget may pro-
foundly affect the atmospheric circulation and SMB of
Antarctica.

To predict future trends in the ice sheet mass bal-
ance, models must reliably reproduce the SMB patterns of
the 2000s and the recent past (at the year-long and millennial
scales). Future scenarios provided by global climate models
suggest that Antarctic snow precipitation should increase in
a warming climate but that snow accumulation is primarily
driven by atmospheric circulation; these increases could be
offset by enhanced loss due to wind blowing ablation."

A synthesis of the Antarctic surface mass balance during the last
800 yr
M. Frezzotti
, C. Scarchilli
, S. Becagli
, M. Proposito
, and S. Urbini

You really should reference this stuff.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38675
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

From above

"This result is in accordance
with the results presented by Monaghan et al.(2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr."

Actually the above referenced paper is on snowfall. There has been no significant increase in snowfall in the last 50 years.

August 2006 > Monaghan et al., 313 (5788): 827-831

Thermo Fisher Scientific
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Science 11 August 2006:
Vol. 313 no. 5788 pp. 827-831
DOI: 10.1126/science.1128243

Report

Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year

Andrew J. Monaghan1,*,
David H. Bromwich1,
Ryan L. Fogt1,
Sheng-Hung Wang1,
Paul A. Mayewski3,
Daniel A. Dixon3,
Alexey Ekaykin4,
Massimo Frezzotti5,
Ian Goodwin6,
Elisabeth Isaksson7,
Susan D. Kaspari3,
Vin I. Morgan8,
Hans Oerter9,
Tas D. Van Ommen8,
Cornelius J. Van der Veen2,
Jiahong Wen10

Abstract

Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice cores. There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere."

You should read this stuff before you post.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38676
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr. Alan Robock,a distinguished professor of climate science at Rutgers University, is a lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Those reports are considered the “definitive assessment of the risks of climate change.”

He explained that the burning of fossil fuels by humans causes the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and these gases retain heat from the sun like a backyard greenhouse. Higher temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, and hotter air holds more water. These changes are causing rising average world temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, volatile weather including more severe storms and droughts, more wild fires, and ecosystem changes.

He emphasized the severe impacts of increased global warming on human society and our metropolitan area, including future flooding of low lying areas in New Jersey and Manhattan.

http://newprovidence.patch.com/groups/around-...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38677
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the game of whack-a-mole she plays that wears me out.
We can refute and disprove her posts all day long; like I said, it won't make any difference..
LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you? Why do you resort to attacking the messenger when you could post the science that would disprove what she posts?

My guess, you can't dispute what she posts. What she posts makes you so uncomfortable that you resort to self defense mechanisms such as calling names and making rude references.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38678
Aug 31, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
To another poster:

From above
"This result is in accordance
with the results presented by Monaghan et al.(2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr."
Actually the above referenced paper is on snowfall. There has been no significant increase in snowfall in the last 50 years.
August 2006 > Monaghan et al., 313 (5788): 827-831
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Science 11 August 2006:
Vol. 313 no. 5788 pp. 827-831
DOI: 10.1126/science.1128243
Report
Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year
Andrew J. Monaghan1,*,
David H. Bromwich1,
Ryan L. Fogt1,
Sheng-Hung Wang1,
Paul A. Mayewski3,
Daniel A. Dixon3,
Alexey Ekaykin4,
Massimo Frezzotti5,
Ian Goodwin6,
Elisabeth Isaksson7,
Susan D. Kaspari3,
Vin I. Morgan8,
Hans Oerter9,
Tas D. Van Ommen8,
Cornelius J. Van der Veen2,
Jiahong Wen10
Abstract
Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice cores. There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere."
You should read this stuff before you post.
LOL. You missed the important point:

Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/8...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38679
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what's funny. All these climate scientists with PhD's have made such outrageous predictions in the past, it is now coming back to haunt them, so now they just end up arguing against their past predictions. Example, Dr. Viner publicly proclaims snow will be a thing of the past, then when it snows they pretend they never said it and blame it on the skeptics and then start a circular argument with themselves stating how they knew all along they knew snow would increase. They do it with all their predictions.
Look what they just recently said about Antarctic Sea Ice:
Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-August reached a record or near-record level high at 18.7 million square kilometers, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center External Non-U.S. government site.
The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenth...
Back in 2007, the IPCC said this:
In contrast to the Arctic, there are signs of a slight increase in the extent of annual mean sea ice [in the Antarctic] over the period 1979–2005 (+1.2 per cent per decade) based on the NASA Team retrieval algorithm. The IPCC concluded that this overall increase was not significant and that there are NO CONSISTENT TRENDS trends during the period of satellite observations.
What a bunch of BS.
Yep,

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7...

This paper indicates that the ice in Antarctica is not so different from the time period of the LIA. Therefore not significantly different.

A review of the ice core data from Antarctica and Greenland indicates that the Antarctica activity precedes the Greenland activity. In other words, it gets cold/hot in Antarctica before is gets cold/hot in Greenland.

If the current state of Antarctica is something like the time period of the LIA what could that mean.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38680
Aug 31, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. You missed the important point:
Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/8...
I think you wanted to post your comment to Patriot.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38681
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep,
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7...
This paper indicates that the ice in Antarctica is not so different from the time period of the LIA. Therefore not significantly different.
A review of the ice core data from Antarctica and Greenland indicates that the Antarctica activity precedes the Greenland activity. In other words, it gets cold/hot in Antarctica before is gets cold/hot in Greenland.
If the current state of Antarctica is something like the time period of the LIA what could that mean.
However, there has never been a period in the past where CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. So how can we expect the same historic patterns to hold for modern times? Is it possible that Greenland will be affected by the increase of atmospheric CO2 before Antarctica? This seems to be the part that many doubters miss. While some historic events do project into the future, that does not mean that they are the only events that affect our climate.

There may be some natural events such as orbital or decreased energy from the sun that are indicating a cooling trend of the Earth but what we are witnessing is an opposite trend. Why?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38682
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Argue about atmospheric temperatures all you want but as I have said before, it is the accumulation of heat that is the problem. The earth is heating.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files...

Since: Jul 13

Neptune, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38683
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I just love it when someone pops in and doesn't even know what was being referred to in my post. My post was about botched predictions and science. I suggest you read my comment to BOZO aka Dr. Bozo PhD regarding that post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Oh and by the way, you need to update your talking points on the Antarctic sea ice. I realize it's hard to keep up, but now the talking point is that the AGW scientists always predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase. So you can either go along with that or start arguing with the AGW scientists, it's up to you how you want to handle that.
"Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-August reached a record or near-record level high at 18.7 million square kilometers, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center External Non-U.S. government site. The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenth...
Up date mu talking points?? Hard to keep up??? I never once mentioned Antarctica Sea Ice now did I. You need to more carefully read what is written to you. I realize that you have stated that the planet is warming...but simply disagree with some of the stated fact's and science. So, you see, I just did not pop-in. The ongoing conditions in Antarctica ARE consistent with a warming planet. Am I a alarmist, yes....are the eventual catastrophic events going to happen tommorrow..no, next year, no, in a decade or two or three..who knows? But they are going to happen none the less. That is my point, it's undeniable. The event's that are now in motion will continue. We as a species seem to lack the will to change. Rather it's greed or a continuation of the status quo is a mute point. Bantering back&forth about science and who says what is counterproductive....someone needs to step up.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38684
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
However, there has never been a period in the past where CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. So how can we expect the same historic patterns to hold for modern times? Is it possible that Greenland will be affected by the increase of atmospheric CO2 before Antarctica? This seems to be the part that many doubters miss. While some historic events do project into the future, that does not mean that they are the only events that affect our climate.
There may be some natural events such as orbital or decreased energy from the sun that are indicating a cooling trend of the Earth but what we are witnessing is an opposite trend. Why?
True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.

So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?

The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.

CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38685
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you? Why do you resort to attacking the messenger when you could post the science that would disprove what she posts?
My guess, you can't dispute what she posts. What she posts makes you so uncomfortable that you resort to self defense mechanisms such as calling names and making rude references.
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.

A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.

I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.

You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.

When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.

I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.

So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.

So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:

Deniers are idiots.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38686
Aug 31, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.
So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?
The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.
CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.
Heat.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38687
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG...and you call me dense. LOL
We all call you dense. LOL
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38688
Aug 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what's funny? YOU!
What a bunch of BS, the stuff you spout, trying to distract from the reality.
The Earth IS warming.
WE are the reason.
It's going to get worse.
There are things we can do about it.
...and on the 7th day we rested.
Ca we give that child an "Amen"

Did you miss the news? No statistically significant warming during the past 16 years... but you have made it clear that no matter what your climate experts say you will continue to believe in the existence of the "missing warming".

:-)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

31 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 48 min harmonious 1,095,053
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 58 min Yahoo 49,229
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr Insect Trust 68,820
Ferguson police shoot another black unarmed man! 1 hr Hayden 22
29 Shot in Spate ofWeekend Chicago Violence 1 hr Anonymous 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr Mister Tonka 97,727
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr andet1987 550
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 176,650
•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••