Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62314 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38843 Sep 3, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. The article discusses the issues with the temperature data. All of the reporting agencies have 'updated' their data on a regular basis. The CRU even 'lost' their source data. They got it wrong when they lost the Medieval Warm Period. And proxy data is location specific.
All of the above are correct verifiable statements discussed in the article. And if they are correct verifiable statements, then 'the Earth is gaining heat' outside the normal parameters of natural climate change is questionable.
exceptional post of the blatantly mundane obvious. you have a knack for stating the boring factuality of things "F-F".

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38844 Sep 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
New Zealand is having its warmest winter since records began, and it ain't too cool in Australia either.
Yes, saw that and a revealing quote for the deniers who keep telling us the temps are flat lining and this was the southern hemisphere winter.

"official reports revealed a worrying fact. The gone twelve months were the hottest months in Australia in more than hundred years."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/bur...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38845 Sep 3, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. The article discusses the issues with the temperature data.
Those fake issues were tested by the BEST analysis finding NO foundation in fact.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the reporting agencies have 'updated' their data on a regular basis.
Yes. Unlike stupidity, research always keeps refining the answers.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The CRU even 'lost' their source data.
Lie again. The CRU doesn't even OWN the data and it is still in the original databases. This is a twisted version of the failure of an invalid FOI request for the data which the CRU *could not* give out because of their limited license for USE of the data.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They got it wrong when they lost the Medieval Warm Period.
They didn't 'lose' the MWP. It just doesn't show up in the SUM of thermal energy because it was a SHIFT of energy based on changes in winds.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
And proxy data is location specific.
Somewhat. But each 'location' is a data point in the analysis. And general changes of averaged yearly temperatures are fairly robust.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the above are correct verifiable statements discussed in the article.
Rather they are lies and misrepresentations. And the misrepresentation in the article doesn't establish a basis for them.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
And if they are correct verifiable statements, then 'the Earth is gaining heat' outside the normal parameters of natural climate change is questionable.
If pigs could fly, you would have a quick way to get around. IF..

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38846 Sep 3, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, saw that and a revealing quote for the deniers who keep telling us the temps are flat lining and this was the southern hemisphere winter.
"official reports revealed a worrying fact. The gone twelve months were the hottest months in Australia in more than hundred years."
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/bur...
LOL....your canard isn't working in the northern hemisphere too well, i take it?

bwaahahahahahaa

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38847 Sep 3, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fake issues were tested by the BEST analysis finding NO foundation in fact.
<quoted text>
Yes. Unlike stupidity, research always keeps refining the answers.
<quoted text>
Lie again. The CRU doesn't even OWN the data and it is still in the original databases. This is a twisted version of the failure of an invalid FOI request for the data which the CRU *could not* give out because of their limited license for USE of the data.
<quoted text>
They didn't 'lose' the MWP. It just doesn't show up in the SUM of thermal energy because it was a SHIFT of energy based on changes in winds.
<quoted text>
Somewhat. But each 'location' is a data point in the analysis. And general changes of averaged yearly temperatures are fairly robust.
<quoted text>
Rather they are lies and misrepresentations. And the misrepresentation in the article doesn't establish a basis for them.
<quoted text>
If pigs could fly, you would have a quick way to get around. IF..
you should go outside sometime.

the world is beautiful....and you're not in danger.....except from yourself maybe.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38848 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. The article discusses the issues with the temperature data. All of the reporting agencies have 'updated' their data on a regular basis. The CRU even 'lost' their source data. They got it wrong when they lost the Medieval Warm Period. And proxy data is location specific.
All of the above are correct verifiable statements discussed in the article. And if they are correct verifiable statements,...
That is the problem, they are questionable.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38849 Sep 4, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, saw that and a revealing quote for the deniers who keep telling us the temps are flat lining and this was the southern hemisphere winter.
"official reports revealed a worrying fact. The gone twelve months were the hottest months in Australia in more than hundred years."
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/bur...
Based on the amount of hype given to Australia to prove global warming, I‘m going to make a prediction based on trends of over-the-top predictions and hype from the past:

Snow will be a thing of the past turned into record snowfalls.

Both poles will melt turned into the Antarctic with record-breaking sea ice. NASA had predicted Arctic sea ice mostly gone summer of 2013 which turned into a record-breaking early cold in the Arctic and the shortest melt season on record.

Temperatures will increase 0.2 decade turned into a 15-year standstill in temperatures.

Prediction in 2007 stated temperatures will come roaring back in 2-3 years turned into a continued standstill.

Sunspot activity will come back by 2010 turned into a 100-year record low in sunspot activity.

Extreme weather will increase turned into decreased tornadoes, record late start of hurricane season, decrease in forest fires, no increase in droughts or fluids.

Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 turned into some of the glaciers are actually growing.

So my prediction is that Australia will most likely have record low temperatures this spring/summer (+/-0.2).
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38851 Sep 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the problem, they are questionable.
No all of the before mentioned statements are true.

The data bases are routinely updated. What curious is that the temps before 1950 are always updated down. As I stated many times, my own area of the four corners has written recorded temperatures. Those recorded temperatures are not the temps used in the data bases. They've been adjusted down.

CRU did lose their source data. They said so. The data was lost/destroyed in an outdated computer, why they didn't retrieve the data before the computer was shut down?

Proxy studies are location specific. I like proxy studies, I understand how they are conducted. They are very useful in showing patterns of activity. They are most credible when they can be compared to other information and show a similar pattern.

We are talking about .7 or .8*C difference in temperatures since 1880. Even very minor adjustments to existing data bases can skew such a small variation. And if we started our data base at 1850, we wouldn't even have the .7/.8*C of warming.

Why not use temperatures that have been recorded? Why not compare the apples to the existing apples? Why would scientists lose/destroy their data. They're scientists, data is their holy grail.

Lots of questions, not many answers.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38852 Sep 4, 2013
This is a great read! Spot on in its analysis of the spurious nature of climate alarmism.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38853 Sep 4, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the problem, they are questionable.
Wait, huh.... What? I thought you guys said this stuff was all "settled" sciencewise. What are we to believe???
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38854 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>funny you should say that!!! i made friends with a native from NZ while vacationing there last Oct. she said the winter has been unbearably cold this year!!
red that in the clarion ledger, son?


Their winter just ended. Are you confused as to what year it is?

And you are saying that one woman's opinion beats all the thermometers and other measurements. I believe in empowering women, but that's ridiculous.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38855 Sep 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Their winter just ended. Are you confused as to what year it is?
And you are saying that one woman's opinion beats all the thermometers and other measurements. I believe in empowering women, but that's ridiculous.
she emailed me last month, dummy! Gee, you're easily thrown off aren't you?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38856 Sep 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Their winter just ended. Are you confused as to what year it is?
And you are saying that one woman's opinion beats all the thermometers and other measurements. I believe in empowering women, but that's ridiculous.
my kiwi friend has lived there her entire life. If she said it was the coldest winter she can remember...I believe her.

Have you ever even been there, son?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38857 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>LOL....your canard isn't working in the northern hemisphere too well, i take it?
bwaahahahahahaa
Is this your first or second infancy?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38858 Sep 4, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you should go outside sometime.
So. Reverting to ad-hominem, I see. Figures.
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>
the world is beautiful.
Which is my basis for wanting to preserve it, using the best available science as the guide. Something YOU would not understand.
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>
and you're not in danger.....except from yourself maybe.
Ahh. the dreamy philosopher without a real clue. The world doesn't run on dreams. Every once in a while it boots these dumb asses in their fundament.. but they want everyone else to pay the price of their ideology. Not going to happen.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38859 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No all of the before mentioned statements are true.
The data bases are routinely updated. What curious is that the temps before 1950 are always updated down. As I stated many times, my own area of the four corners has written recorded temperatures. Those recorded temperatures are not the temps used in the data bases. They've been adjusted down.
CRU did lose their source data. They said so. The data was lost/destroyed in an outdated computer, why they didn't retrieve the data before the computer was shut down?
Proxy studies are location specific. I like proxy studies, I understand how they are conducted. They are very useful in showing patterns of activity. They are most credible when they can be compared to other information and show a similar pattern.
We are talking about .7 or .8*C difference in temperatures since 1880. Even very minor adjustments to existing data bases can skew such a small variation. And if we started our data base at 1850, we wouldn't even have the .7/.8*C of warming.
Why not use temperatures that have been recorded? Why not compare the apples to the existing apples? Why would scientists lose/destroy their data. They're scientists, data is their holy grail.
Lots of questions, not many answers.
LHMF answered above.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38860 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Reverting to ad-hominem, I see. Figures.
<quoted text>
Which is my basis for wanting to preserve it, using the best available science as the guide. Something YOU would not understand.
<quoted text>
Ahh. the dreamy philosopher without a real clue. The world doesn't run on dreams. Every once in a while it boots these dumb asses in their fundament.. but they want everyone else to pay the price of their ideology. Not going to happen.
nice ad hominems, sparky!
Lol
Now post something you actually know.
Apparently the best science is off limits to your comprehension and learning abilities?
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38861 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No all of the before mentioned statements are true.
Lie we would take your word on it???
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The data bases are routinely updated.
Yup. That is what you get when time doesn't stop and meteorology continues to be sampled every day.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What curious is that the temps before 1950 are always updated down.
Lie. Or conspiracy theory. Take your pick.. Though there may be a predominance of temperature lowering as the location or selection of meteorology data improves and less 'spurious heating' from local terrain features is involved. Most moves of meteorology stations would be to a BETTER location which would be closer to the 'real temperature level' of the area with less additional heating problems from local topography and buildings.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated many times, my own area of the four corners has written recorded temperatures. Those recorded temperatures are not the temps used in the data bases.
Of COURSE not, you dimwit. Raw data has to be first processed for consistency and 'faults' such as location, setup, instrument error, etc. Their are enough meteorology stations as well that in general only the 'most valid' ones are used. The METHODOLOGY of this weeding out and correcting for local errors is quite precise and backed by MANY studies of it's validity.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
They've been adjusted down.
In some cases, sure. It is easier to get a higher reading from local problems than a cooler reading so more of the corrections will be downward (i.e compensation of a local heat sink like asphalt paving).
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
CRU did lose their source data. They said so. The data was lost/destroyed in an outdated computer, why they didn't retrieve the data before the computer was shut down?
Lie. They deleted the files because they did not OWN the source or have a license to distribute it to others. They PAID for it from the licensing source and so were OBLIGATED to destroy the records. But it still exists in the ORIGINAL DATABASE. You have been corrected on this issue hundreds of times and continue your LIES.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Proxy studies are location specific. I like proxy studies, I understand how they are conducted. They are very useful in showing patterns of activity. They are most credible when they can be compared to other information and show a similar pattern.
What. Just that specific square foot? Or is it relevant to the local 'microclimate'. Take your time. I know that thinking is hard for you..

And one of the 'methodologies' of both meteorology and proxy climate is validation by correlation with other sources. They have been doing it right since long before you were born..
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about .7 or .8*C difference in temperatures since 1880. Even very minor adjustments to existing data bases can skew such a small variation. And if we started our data base at 1850, we wouldn't even have the .7/.8*C of warming.
The BEST study took ALL of these 'quibbles' and tested them to see if processing them in a way to obviate the claim would make a difference. It didn't. Now grow up and follow the data.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38862 Sep 4, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this your first or second infancy?
what exactly are you "reverting" to here, don?!?

Lol

You people are so funny....and predictable...and hypocritical ......and thick!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#38863 Sep 4, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not use temperatures that have been recorded? Why not compare the apples to the existing apples? Why would scientists lose/destroy their data. They're scientists, data is their holy grail.
Because raw data has flaws. To use raw data without validating (as you promote above for climate proxies) is just stupid and bad science. i.e a 'false cooling' can be introduced by a move of the instrument to a different location. The 'raw' data will have a step change that is NOT valid. One must track down the records of the station and CORRECT for these issues.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of questions, not many answers.
Lots of answers if you take those blinders off and get an education. Ignorance is curable.

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
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 min Susanm 9,853
last post wins! (Apr '13) 6 min honeymylove 1,956
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 10 min Jacques in Canada 231,046
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Brad 1,458,551
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 46 min honeymylove 2,280
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 57 min Legal Analysis 104,521
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr PEllen 3,449

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages