Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62878 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39083 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I missed that classic.
<quoted text>
krusty trips over her big clown feet... again.
How we laugh!
Snow is not the same thing as ice, idiot.
Furthermore, the two papers do not even address the same issue.

One talks about sea ice and the other about land ice.

All you seem to be capable of is spamming extracts of articles cut' pasted from denier blogs.

Any intelligent discussion of the articles and whether or not they support your case (they don't) is clearly beyond you.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39084 Sep 11, 2013
By the way, the models *did* predict more snowfall:

Models predict that land areas in the Arctic will receive substantially increased snowfall in winter and that the climate will be markedly warmer. Summer could be much warmer and wetter than present. The climate over the Arctic Ocean does not change as dramatically, but it will become warmer and wetter by 2080. For the Antarctic continent, the models tend to predict more snow in winter and summer.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index....
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#39085 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it was from a record low, idiot.
Regardless of where the starting point is, it is the second largest single year increase on the graph.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39086 Sep 11, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of where the starting point is, it is the second largest single year increase on the graph.
Not regardless. Because.
Mothra

United States

#39087 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Not regardless. Because.
That's ridiculous... unless you're going to argue that the largest annual increase was "because" it was the 9th lowest.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39088 Sep 11, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mothballs theory has more holes than woolen underware.
It's also a fake bird ...

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39089 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experimental data is science; why no published peer reviewed experiments for climate change mitigation? Do you suspect the effect of man made CO2 on global climate is too weak for experimental detection?
What data are you missing?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39090 Sep 11, 2013
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39091 Sep 11, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
What you have to understand is that only relevant numbers, equations, graphs, etc. but not words describe science. The scientists then use words to explain what they are reporting as science.

They don't need to put down words for communication among themselves. They use words for the uninitiated, unfamiliar people. For example, the use of probabilities makes words or grammar redundant.

So what you post here has no relevance to science.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39092 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
By the way, the models *did* predict more snowfall:
Models predict that land areas in the Arctic will receive substantially increased snowfall in winter and that the climate will be markedly warmer. Summer could be much warmer and wetter than present. The climate over the Arctic Ocean does not change as dramatically, but it will become warmer and wetter by 2080. For the Antarctic continent, the models tend to predict more snow in winter and summer.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index....
My bad…they did predict more snow. But they also predicted more melt due to CO2 forcing. So when someone says that an increase in Antarctic SIE is expected in a warming world, can you point out where that was expected and the models that came from?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39093 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
In the scientific literature he says that uncertainties mean we can't say that the models are wrong.
In the blog, he says the models are wrong and we can't explain why. Twice.
No, that's not what was said at all. They discussed reasons as to why models and observations diverged, came up with a few reasons why, favored one reason over the other, and then qualified that with this sentence: 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.

Show me where it says you can’t say models are wrong?

And by the way, this paper was co-authored by Christy. This wasn’t his paper only. If it was just his paper, then I’m sure the other option would have been favored. But when you are working with a team, you don’t always get each individual scientists opinion in the paper, you get the groups opinioin, which of course doesn’t mean the entire group agreed.

These are the authors of the paper:
Convening Lead Author:Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors:V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K Met Office
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39094 Sep 11, 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.
Now that's really interesting. Just asking...what about Svenmark's theory....We have really low sun spots, increased cosmic rays which leads to clouds and cooling. Do you think this could have the same amount of cooling effect as Pinatubo?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39095 Sep 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My bad…they did predict more snow. But they also predicted more melt due to CO2 forcing. So when someone says that an increase in Antarctic SIE is expected in a warming world, can you point out where that was expected and the models that came from?
The melt is predicted in 30-40 years by the models.

As to your second question, try the paper that *you* posted that says the current increase is within the range of natural variability in the models.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39096 Sep 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not what was said at all.
Yes it is.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39097 Sep 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's really interesting. Just asking...what about Svenmark's theory....We have really low sun spots, increased cosmic rays which leads to clouds and cooling. Do you think this could have the same amount of cooling effect as Pinatubo?
LOL.

Who needs climate science when we have a pair on idiots on the internet?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39098 Sep 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
Show me where it says you can’t say models are wrong?
However, the large observational uncertainties that currently exist make it difficult to determine whether or not models still have significant errors.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap...
And by the way, this paper was co-authored by Christy. This wasn’t his paper only. If it was just his paper, then I’m sure the other option would have been favored. But when you are working with a team, you don’t always get each individual scientists opinion in the paper, you get the groups opinioin, which of course doesn’t mean the entire group agreed.
LOL.

The denier mind at work!

Christy wouldn't really have put his name to the above statement! No! his arm was twisted by the other authors!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39099 Sep 11, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Yes and this is the problem, climate science suddenly became the ole "reds under the bed" routine again, someone looking to take control the world. Those sorts of ideas can only come from the "Glen Becks" of this world who story book their nightmares as if it is truth. How on earth does looking after the environment become a liberal idea. If they really bothered to think about it, then a few might hang their heads in shame.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39100 Sep 11, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
In response to your link:
P3 why are you so paranoid about something that is not conclusive and has no certainty at all, son?? an asteroid will hit earth at some time in the future. that is certain! you worry about unfounded theories!! LOL why? man made co2 caused catastrophes are politically spoon fed theories. HELLO!!!!
P4 consume less...regulate business...curb big oil...restrict car use??? i have one valid question......WHY??? we are a consumer based free market global economy. one based on petrol products that go beyond auto fuel. do you have any REAL reasons to to support these assumptions other than your luddite minded opinions??? science isn't on your side....even if you insist that it is. LOL your science is bastardized theories and shaky models. you can take the bait hook, line, and sinker, sport....but the rest of us will wait for real scientific outcomes!
P5 the science isn't clear in spite of the authors, and your, insistence!

In response to the authors answer in a "nutshell":
you have no science expertise or known facts. PERIOD!!
"97% peer reviewed support" is a myth and a proven lie over and again. i wish you people would stop using that lame statistic. but, then again, it is funny.
science uncertainty is a given where climate change is concerned. why can't you, the author and the rest of the alarmists just admit that you don't know anymore than anyone else. your demanding that you know the 'facts' is an admission that you lack the intellectual honesty and do not possess the 'high ground'. LOL stop pretending!!
the rest of the article is ad hominem political correct cowardice tripe.

thanks for the lame article and the laugh!!

LOL

you really are from mississip, ain't ya?

LOL
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39102 Sep 12, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>In response to your link:
P3 why are you so paranoid about something that is not conclusive and has no certainty at all, son?? an asteroid will hit earth at some time in the future. that is certain! you worry about unfounded theories!! LOL why? man made co2 caused catastrophes are politically spoon fed theories. HELLO!!!!
P4 consume less...regulate business...curb big oil...restrict car use??? i have one valid question......WHY??? we are a consumer based free market global economy. one based on petrol products that go beyond auto fuel. do you have any REAL reasons to to support these assumptions other than your luddite minded opinions??? science isn't on your side....even if you insist that it is. LOL your science is bastardized theories and shaky models. you can take the bait hook, line, and sinker, sport....but the rest of us will wait for real scientific outcomes!
P5 the science isn't clear in spite of the authors, and your, insistence!
In response to the authors answer in a "nutshell":
you have no science expertise or known facts. PERIOD!!
"97% peer reviewed support" is a myth and a proven lie over and again. i wish you people would stop using that lame statistic. but, then again, it is funny.
science uncertainty is a given where climate change is concerned. why can't you, the author and the rest of the alarmists just admit that you don't know anymore than anyone else. your demanding that you know the 'facts' is an admission that you lack the intellectual honesty and do not possess the 'high ground'. LOL stop pretending!!
the rest of the article is ad hominem political correct cowardice tripe.
thanks for the lame article and the laugh!!
LOL
you really are from mississip, ain't ya?
LOL
LOL for you means Lots Of Lies.

This is simply an editorial, completely devoid of fact. You should send it to the Daily Mail's letters to the editor.

Yes, I really am from Mississippi, going back about 6 generations. Seems you're too embarrassed or paranoid to name your location.

lol
lol?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39103 Sep 12, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL for you means Lots Of Lies.
This is simply an editorial, completely devoid of fact. You should send it to the Daily Mail's letters to the editor.
Yes, I really am from Mississippi, going back about 6 generations. Seems you're too embarrassed or paranoid to name your location.
lol
lol?
I'm nation wide, son!

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) 18 min SweLL GirL 10,053
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 54 min District 1 234,005
News Obama's farewell speech in Chicago felt like th... 57 min Slurpz9697 28
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP 1,479,504
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 3,523
last post wins! (Dec '10) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 2,888
last post wins! (Apr '13) 5 hr They cannot kill ... 2,154

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages