Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54578 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: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39198 Sep 15, 2013
An Asian answer to questions that to deniers always ask regardless of previous answers given.
So I call them loop questions, BrianG is the biggest offender and the rest are not far behind.
What is apparent, that countries that don't have a fox news or a Rush Limpburger to deal with view the climate with the only tools they have and that is life experience which is one thing they can't deny.

Three out of four Asians say the weather has become hotter and less predictable in the past decade as a result of climate change, prompting job changes, migration and lifestyle adaptation, a study shows.

In India, one of the world’s biggest producers of wheat, sugar and rice, most respondents said shifting weather patterns have led to water shortages, reduced agricultural productivity and loss of income, according to the study released today by Climate Asia, a project backed by the British Broadcasting Corp.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/where_we_wor...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39199 Sep 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
I had a denier try to tell me the Earth was cooling.
I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
First, how long can toxic topix AGW deniers live without a liver? Forever...... they're toxic.

Second, you sure Hannibal won't come after you for stealing his material?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39200 Sep 15, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Such hypocrisy.
During the winter warmists are quick to point out that 'weather' isn't 'climate', so record cold events aren't evidence of cooling.
But during the summer, they are.
btw, I notice you didn't answer my question. Warmists cannot concede any argument.
That just demonstrates how fragile their theory is, and that it's more a 'belief' than "science".
I'm posting this just to piss you off...

The Boulder, Colo. area is reeling after being inundated by record rainfall, with more than half a year’s worth of rain falling over the past three days. During those three days, 24-hour rainfall totals of between 8 and 10 inches across much of the Boulder area were enough to qualify this storm as a 1 in 1,000 year event, meaning that it has a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in a given year.

Climate Central
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39201 Sep 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
You're(me me me getting mine in the 69 position) about as far removed from reality as a denierbot can get.
Yes, his name, "me me me getting mine in the 69 position", shows it is removed from reality.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39202 Sep 15, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Such hypocrisy.
Telling on yourself now?
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
During the winter warmists are quick to point out that 'weather' isn't 'climate', so record cold events aren't evidence of cooling.
Summer OR Winter. A cold day is NOT evidence of anything except the seasonal changes. And no. Warm and cool days don't say anything about global warming OR cooling. But science does find the global average temperature of the surface and that is warming which is the 'scientific evidence' on that issue.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
But during the summer, they are.
Nonsense. And the issue is the prevalence of climate EXTREMES, not day to day weather as evidence of climate change probably caused by AGW warming.

I realize that you are uneducated and probably confuse the two issues.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
btw, I notice you didn't answer my question. Warmists cannot concede any argument.
The clueless and easily led are the primary 'consumers' of fossil fuel propaganda and junk science. They tend to be your 'arguments' and nobody should 'concede' to crap.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
That just demonstrates how fragile their theory is, and that it's more a 'belief' than "science".
What is more relevant is the total lack of any reference to scientific papers on YOUR part. The refusal to look at science as the 'best current understanding' and seek opinions, politic and silly claims is the heart of your problem.

P.S. if AGW theory is so 'fragile' why are you STILL trying to kill it and how do you rebut the support for it in both climate researchers and scientific academies. Obviously this is just more of your 'big lie' spam.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39203 Sep 15, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, his name, "me me me getting mine in the 69 position", shows it is removed from reality.
His 'biography' shows how little he knows of science.

MeMeMine69:
Male, Age: 56, London Ontario, UglyVille
About Me:
I’m an award winning playwright, actor, failed comedian, budding screenplay writer, horticulturist, husband to the best lady in the world, father of a lovely daughter, and I’ve worked in the same place for thirty years; Springbank Park.

He calls his home town 'Uglyville' yet has lived there three decades?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39204 Sep 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm posting this just to piss you off...
The Boulder, Colo. area is reeling after being inundated by record rainfall, with more than half a year’s worth of rain falling over the past three days. During those three days, 24-hour rainfall totals of between 8 and 10 inches across much of the Boulder area were enough to qualify this storm as a 1 in 1,000 year event, meaning that it has a 0.1 percent chance of occurring in a given year.
Climate Central
Sorry, doesn't piss me off at all.

But I do appreciate you owning up to the hypocrisy of the warmists.

Good for you.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#39205 Sep 15, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR. What are you quoting from me or science?
Your posts inform us of your lunacy.
Oh, sorry, my bad. I thought you were a climate change believer. Never mind then.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39206 Sep 15, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
An Asian answer to questions that to deniers always ask regardless of previous answers given.
So I call them loop questions, BrianG is the biggest offender and the rest are not far behind.
What is apparent, that countries that don't have a fox news or a Rush Limpburger to deal with view the climate with the only tools they have and that is life experience which is one thing they can't deny.
Three out of four Asians say the weather has become hotter and less predictable in the past decade as a result of climate change, prompting job changes, migration and lifestyle adaptation, a study shows.
In India, one of the world’s biggest producers of wheat, sugar and rice, most respondents said shifting weather patterns have led to water shortages, reduced agricultural productivity and loss of income, according to the study released today by Climate Asia, a project backed by the British Broadcasting Corp.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/where_we_wor...
Thirty-five percent of adults in 111 countries in 2010 say global warming results from human activities, while less than half as many (14%) blame nature. Thirteen percent fault both.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147242/Worldwide-B...

In developing Asia, only 27% believe in AGW, and for Sub-Sarahan Africa, 22%.

As for the US, 34%.

I hope warmists don't take this as a reason to crank up their propaganda mills.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39207 Sep 15, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything that is implicit in AGW theory, such as disproving the physics of the greenhouse effect, showing that the forcing is inadequate, showing that CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere, etc etc. One flaw is all it takes.
Trouble is that NO peer reviewed serious studies have been able to disprove AGW theory and more and more studies have confirmed it, leading to a situation where it would almost be easier to disprove gravity. Lots of luck on that.. and let us know when you have something REAL, if you ever do.
There are plenty of flaws. No one disputes the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is that manmade emissions of CO2 have been the main driver of climate for the last 30 years, and due to that, we face catastrophic consequences. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are showing natural variability was underestimated and climate sensitivity was overestimated and that model predictions of warming have been overestimated. There is plenty of admission from the IPCC that the oceans, clouds, and sun are poorly understood. Without understanding of these very important climate regulators, there can be no unequivocal statement that CO2 is the primary driver. You can keep on saying that this pause was anticipated, but we know no pause was anticipated at this point in time by just looking back a few years at all the predictions that stated global warming should be ROARING back by now.

But you actually want me to defy the laws of physics and want me to believe that CO2 is taking a break...a pause...and that for now natural variability is in control. But to say that, you are saying that natural variability had little to do with the warming for the last 30 years. If natural variability was underestimated during this pause, it only stands to reason that it was also underestimated during the warming period of the last 30 years. The AGW scientists totally expected at this point in time to be at higher temperatures than now and they are scrambling to explain the “missing heat.” The AGW hypothesis doesn’t live up to the observations or predictions and new peer review papers are showing that.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39208 Sep 15, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So far today, I have heard the rains described as "a year's rain in one day", "a 100-year event", " a 1000-year event".
If it is natural variation, I can accept that too. But the odds are that it is a natural event that would have occurred anyway, but because of warming, it is a natural event on steroids.
A concept beyond the grasp of our resident fools.
Not unusual, predicted..Interview with head of Colorado Springs Emergency Management in 2010: He stated Colorado was due for “the big one”…and he was telling citizens to get ready. Not unusual for Colorado.

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39209 Sep 15, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Altho toxic topix AGW deniers seldom make comments on record shattering AGW enhanced events AT the time of those events, toxic topix AGW deniers love comparing those record shattering AGW enhanced events to "recovery" events, such as 1998-99, 2007-08 & now 2012-13. However, toxic topix AGW deniers seldom get the science & mathematics right, because they don't have science & mathematics degrees.
//////////
Sea ice VOLUME is a better measure of conditions than short climate events:
Arctic VOLUME as of September 1, 2013 is not quite 16% HIGHER(not 60%, like toxic topix AGW deniers report) than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for September 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,000 cubic kilometers. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is almost 3 times less,~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for September 1.
Put 10,000 cubic kilometers of 1980's ice minus present day ice on Manhattan....... & you'll have an ice depth of 14 miles. "motheaten" has a whole lot of Arctic sea ice, still to recover.
The warmists are the ones who every year in October trot out the numbers of the Arctic Sea Ice EXTENT, not the volume. So we are only comparing what is trotted out by the warmists to the media every year. If the sea ice volume is a better measurement, then that is the number and graph that should have been publicized every year, but it wasn’t.

Same with temperatures. Every year come January, we get the highly anticipated report of where the year ranked in terms of warmth. Now that it is has been explained that the decade of the 2000s had statistically no warmth, we are being told surface temperature is no longer a good measurement, even though we have been told that it has been for the last 20 years. So now you get all stompy feet mad when surface temperature and ice EXTENT are talked about.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39210 Sep 15, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
P.S. if AGW theory is so 'fragile' why are you STILL trying to kill it and how do you rebut the support for it in both climate researchers and scientific academies. Obviously this is just more of your 'big lie' spam.
Gee who wouldn't support a steady paycheck in a growth industry?

Oh wait... one can only make unfounded allegations of greed, corruption and complicity to the evil oil companies.

Never mind.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39211 Sep 15, 2013
From the UCS:

>>Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science.... Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scie...

Curious... only 4 of the 19 'statements' are from this decade.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39212 Sep 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of flaws. No one disputes the greenhouse effect. What is in dispute is that manmade emissions of CO2 have been the main driver of climate for the last 30 years, and due to that, we face catastrophic consequences. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are showing natural variability was underestimated and climate sensitivity was overestimated and that model predictions of warming have been overestimated.
Shouldn't be hard to link to a few then, should it?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39213 Sep 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
But you actually want me to defy the laws of physics and want me to believe that CO2 is taking a break...a pause...and that for now natural variability is in control. But to say that, you are saying that natural variability had little to do with the warming for the last 30 years. If natural variability was underestimated during this pause, it only stands to reason that it was also underestimated during the warming period of the last 30 years.
A non sequitur. If heat is moving into the deep ocean where it wasn't before, which the evidence seems to suggest, then there is no reason to think that warming was overestimated.
The AGW scientists totally expected at this point in time to be at higher temperatures than now and they are scrambling to explain the “missing heat.”
The man who told you about the missing heat says he's found it now:

Abstract
The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr ...

Why do you believe him when he says there's missing heat but not when he says there is no missing heat any more?
The AGW hypothesis doesn’t live up to the observations or predictions and new peer review papers are showing that.
Here's a peer reviewed paper that says, when you take the random fluctuations of a small part of the Pacific ocean into account, the observations of global temperatures fit the predictions very well.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncu...

Here's another that shows observations matched model predictions over the previous 16 years, when the model is adjusted to previous climate fluctuations.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full...

Two papers that say recent slower warming is due to short term effects and says nothing about the long term threat of AGW.

I've posted links to two peer reviewed papers: let's see you do the same.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39214 Sep 15, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The warmists are the ones who every year in October trot out the numbers of the Arctic Sea Ice EXTENT, not the volume. So we are only comparing what is trotted out by the warmists to the media every year. If the sea ice volume is a better measurement, then that is the number and graph that should have been publicized every year, but it wasn’t.
Deniers are doing what they did in 2008: pointing to a "recovery" in extent after a drastic drop in 2007 as though it proved there was nothing to worry about in the Arctic.

You'd think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice...
Same with temperatures. Every year come January, we get the highly anticipated report of where the year ranked in terms of warmth. Now that it is has been explained that the decade of the 2000s had statistically no warmth, we are being told surface temperature is no longer a good measurement, even though we have been told that it has been for the last 20 years. So now you get all stompy feet mad when surface temperature and ice EXTENT are talked about.
Just like the trend in Arctic sea ice, there are years when the line wiggles down a bit.

I've been trying to educate Topix science deniers on this for four years or more
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I predict the thin ice will melt to a record low, if not this summer, then within a couple of years.
<quoted text>
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Fair Game wrote:
..a wiggly line may wiggle up and down, but wiggle up more than it wiggles down.
2009.

But Topix science deniers are quite happy to use short term trends to argue AGW is not a threat.

They told us the Arctic was recovering in 2008.
They tell us the Arctic is recovering in 2013.
They told us the world was cooling after 1998.
They told us warming had stopped after 1998.
They told us there was no significant warming for 15 years.
They told us sea level rise had stopped in 1996.

There's only so many times that denier claims based on short term data can fail by the wayside before people realise what deniers are: liars.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

#39215 Sep 15, 2013
The AGW fearmongers will eat their words later, when the new IPCC overviews hit the street. Word is... they are starting to listen to actual data.
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/15/un-ipc...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39216 Sep 15, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
The AGW fearmongers will eat their words later, when the new IPCC overviews hit the street. Word is... they are starting to listen to actual data.
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/15/un-ipc...
The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39217 Sep 15, 2013
colddrainedfish wrote:
...... fearmongers
Did you fear to even try for a mathematics or science degree?

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr disastermaster 1,277,682
News Doctor disciplined for allegedly chastising Chi... (Jul '09) 2 hr pailrider 163
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Dr Guru 197,022
News Emanuel set to call for largest property tax hi... 6 hr Bama Yankee 1
TOYOTA , Warranty Fraud, Negligent Mechanic, mi... 6 hr lichtran 2
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr 40ish 6,435
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr Ferrerman unplugg... 100,661
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages