Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61453 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.

kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39057 Sep 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even a 'claim'. It was an off the cuff remark based on a discussion of 'if this goes on'. In other words, a speculation.
Are you two trying to make each other feel better? But you know what, I do agree with both of you. I believe everything these scientists say are off the cuff with no basis for reality.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39058 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand, because you have no science or mathematics background. Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it:
"Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."
Pay attention, we were talking about 60% increase over 2012.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39060 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand,
apparently you don't understand....or better yet comprehend.
DO try to keep up, son.
Btw...don't pretend to know my academic background, son, you fail more miserably at that than your pretending to understand climate.
Lol

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39061 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of my links are from original sources or mainstream media.
The links you put in.

But search for your other quotes, and it's always a denier blog that you got them from.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39062 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this straight. You send me to Skeptical Science. I read the article, which by the way did not address the fact that models do not match observation, then you tell me to listen to Christy who is referred to by Skeptical Science. So I do a quick google search about Christy and hot spots and find Christy's analysis of the climate models versus observation:
http://www.climatedialogue.org/
About the site:
Climate Dialogue offers a platform for discussions between (climate) scientists on important climate topics that are of interest to both fellow scientists and the general public. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views that scientists have on these issues. Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by reacting to each others’ arguments moderated by one of the members of the editorial staff. Once the discussion has reached the point where it is clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why, the editioral staff will round off the discussion. The decision on when that point will have been reached is up to the editorial staff. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion. The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.
This site is for both sides. They have both skeptics and warmists, hardly a denier blog unless you think any scientist who is a skeptic should not have a say.
So did Skeptical Science not have an easy click to my reply? Were you unable to form your own thoughts on this? It's hard when Skeptical Science only gives you part of the information. It kind of leaves you hanging. So go with the denier blog answer if that makes you feel better.
Christy says one thing in the peer reviewed literature and another in a blog.

What does that tell you?

It tells me he tries to get stuff past a blog audience that he couldn't get past his peers.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39063 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, I guess now NASA is a denier blog and the paper you posted was from a denier blog.
I got all my information from NASA on this one. Both my paper and your paper came from NASA. The difference between you and me is that I actually read what you post and what I post.
My paper was from NASA ICEsat showing Anartica ice mass increasing. Your paper was from NASA showing Anartica ice mass decreasing
You fail to address the point that your paper looks at data up to 2008, mine looks at data up to 2011.

Science moves on; denial doesn't

You also fail to address the point that your paper clearly states that the extra snowfall is due to *warming*.

“For God & Country”

Since: Aug 13

The Promised Land Illinois

#39064 Sep 10, 2013
Now back to one of the other important Topix. Today is scientific community (National Snow and Ice Data Center) has stated we are on a cool down period for the earth. They say the Artic Sea has 60% more coverage than last year at this time. And we are still well below the 80’s.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now the sun is showing very little Sun Spot Activity. Sun Spots generate more heat. Which in turn cause Stellar warming for the local Planet’s!(Earth is one of these Planets’s)

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsyst...

Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.
So we have two gases competing for global climate change.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate...

Now I am not dismissing the human factor mind you. But is it possible that the Sun-Volcanos-and several factors may play a more important role in Global Climate Change.
How much longer do you think it will be before some scientist say ICE AGE!! And ask for money to study the effects on how man has played its role in creating the next Ice Age?
Oh wait that was the 1970’s. They will ask again

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39065 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is not a scientist?
Wadhams on the 2013 prediction in 2007:
Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski. "Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab. "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Wadhams only made his 2015/2016 last year.
This is from 2008:
We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would." Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2...
Wadhams did not predict 2013, halfwit:

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39066 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
Again, if it makes you feel better to call NASA a denier blog, go for it.
And as far as the other papers I posted on that same post, all original sources. AGW hypothesis never expected Antarctic sea ice to grow.
You have linked to a paper which says the models account for that sea ice growth.

You shot yourself in your big clown foot.

Too bad your too shameless to feel embarrassed.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39067 Sep 10, 2013
Correction: you're..

Not that earthling's here any more to pick nits.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39068 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well let's see, I've been called an imbecile, an idiot, a moron and then told my information is just from denier blogs. Great thinkers here.
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39069 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The links you put in.
But search for your other quotes, and it's always a denier blog that you got them from.
I do believe you are confusing me with yourself who constantly goes to the "I can't think for myself" link at Skeptical Science and clicks and posts.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39070 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Christy says one thing in the peer reviewed literature and another in a blog.
What does that tell you?
It tells me he tries to get stuff past a blog audience that he couldn't get past his peers.
Instructions:

1. Go here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

2. Click on #58.

3. Click on the link Conclusion of the US Climate Change Science Program.

4. Scroll down to page 10.

5. Read Amplification of Surface Warming in the Tropical Troposphere.

6. Then let me know how this is different from what I posted regarding Christy's comments on the difference between models and observations.
Mothra

United States

#39072 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY
What gibberish. She was listing names she's been called -- that's an ad hominem on... herself?

How about the non-sequitur, which would summarize your recitation of the 'ad hominem'.

But perhaps your reading comprehension sucks and you think she was calling other people names.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39074 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Instructions:
1. Go here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
2. Click on #58.
3. Click on the link Conclusion of the US Climate Change Science Program.
4. Scroll down to page 10.
5. Read Amplification of Surface Warming in the Tropical Troposphere.
6. Then let me know how this is different from what I posted regarding Christy's comments on the difference between models and observations.
Christy on a blog:
While there is much that can be discussed from these results, we wonder simply why the models overwarm the troposphere compared with observations by such large amounts (on average) during a period when we have the best understanding of the processes that cause the temperature to change. During a period when the mid-troposphere warmed by +0.06 °C/decade, why does the model average simulate a warming of +0.26 °C/decade?

Unfortunately, a complete or even satisfactory answer cannot be provided.
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.
Christy on a blog:
What I can say from the standpoint of applying the scientific method to a robust response-feature of models, is that the average model result is inconsistent with the observed rate of change of tropical tropospheric temperature - inconsistent both in absolute magnitude and in vertical structure (Douglass and Christy 2013.) This indicates our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous and, as suggested by Stevens and Bony, this performance by the models indicates we need to go back to the basics. From this statement there is only a short distance to the next - the use of climate models in policy decisions is, in my view, not to be recommended at this time.
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
The conclusion from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (co-authored by UAH's John Christy) is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between model and satellite observations is measurement uncertainty.
It should be obvious even to an unquestioning spammer like you that Christy is saying one thing in one place and something else in another.

Why is that?

Oh yeah, because denier blogs are read by ideologically-bent, scientific illiterates like you.

Christy is a demagogue.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39075 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You have linked to a paper which says the models account for that sea ice growth.
You shot yourself in your big clown foot.
Too bad your too shameless to feel embarrassed.
There you go again, never reading my posts. I already addressed that models never predicted snow in a warming world in the Antarctic.

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

(Starting at the 4th paragraph, don't want you to overexert yourself and have to read too much.)

It's up to you to show me the models of a projected increase in snow in Antarctica.

S
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39076 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Christy on a blog:
<quoted text>
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
<quoted text>
Christy on a blog:
<quoted text>
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
<quoted text>
It should be obvious even to an unquestioning spammer like you that Christy is saying one thing in one place and something else in another.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because denier blogs are read by ideologically-bent, scientific illiterates like you.
Christy is a demagogue.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. But I understand because link #58 at "I can't think for myself" at Skeptical Science only cherry picks what they want you to think. So it's hard to reconcile what Christy says in one place against what Skeptical Science tells you. But since you don't have the ability to follow directions, I will post here the complete statement on the Tropical hot spot, which includes the conclusion from Skeptical Science:

Now this is from page 10....it's not a denier blog. It is about halfway down the page and then notice the key word, "HOWEVER"....I will put it all in caps so you can read that part of it:

The inconsistency between model results and observations could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture
such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric datasets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report - model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause)- favors the second explanation. HOWEVER, THE LARGE OBSERVATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MODELS STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties.

So how is this different from what Christy posted at another site?



“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#39077 Sep 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Believe it not, it has nothing to do with belief but with science facts.
Scientists don't do what you mmee expect from them. Surprise!
Think a little, duh.
The scientific FACT is that science and not event the IPCC have never said their own crisis was certain or inevitable or eventual or just WILL happen.
They agree it "could" not will so you have to stop saying it WILL, correct?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#39078 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not compare a whole lot of years?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/...
Good graph. The only other one year increase greater than the current year is in the Pinatubo time period when the entire earth cooled as a result of the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39079 Sep 10, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Good graph. The only other one year increase greater than the current year is in the Pinatubo time period when the entire earth cooled as a result of the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere.
That's because it was from a record low, idiot.

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
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 31 min Sublime1 103,597
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 50 min Barmsweb 72,037
News Gentrification along Chicago River worries long... 1 hr Monkey6196 2
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 225,422
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr the deplorable Jo... 1,431,412
Is Melania Trump a Mail Order Bride? 3 hr lawrencemcdonald444 2
last post wins! (Apr '13) 7 hr They cannot kill ... 1,644

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages