Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63582 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"

#39267 Sep 16, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Fair Game,
It helps because a warmer Earth, on average, has been a good thing (no glaciers over Minneapolis or Madison) and there is no observed evidence the benefits will stop. CM's "suggest" continued warming will someday be bad but they may be wrong... in the same way they were wrong when they failed to forecast the "pause" in warming within these past 2 decades.
May your faith bring you peace,
-koolaid
Brain dead denier No. 1.

Yes, computer models suggest that the consequences of global warming will be bad.

So does the palaeoclimatology evidence.

A short term dip in the trend does not say anything about the ;long term trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39268 Sep 16, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text> I suspect that is not the case.
It is clear; there is not a single science study or science academy that claims that "Our CO2 emissions are so high that dangerous warming will still result."
Brain dead denier No. 2.

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini... .

Why do you think every scientific academy on the planet is urging us to reduce emissions?

Because they recognise the risks.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39269 Sep 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hahaha you lost!
<shooting from the hip is your mo>
LOL!!!

and how is that, son? because you say so?

stop posting out of your ass, midge.

wipe your lip, too
Mothra

United States

#39270 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Brain dead denier No. 2.
Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini... .
Why do you think every scientific academy on the planet is urging us to reduce emissions?
Because they recognise the risks.
Or maybe it's for the big paychecks.

Of course, you can refute this with evidence, right?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39271 Sep 17, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe it's for the big paychecks.
Of course, you can refute this with evidence, right?
Brain dead denier No.3.

No, evidence will never convince a conspiracy theorist.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39272 Sep 17, 2013
"Brain dead denier" Nº 4 says:

This thread is way out of date, "Once slow-moving threat, global warming ..." has slowed to a speed that appears slow to the average snail.

Time to scrap it, for:

Once slow-moving threat, glowbull warming has decelerated to an even slower pace than before, probably because the temperature has risen to what it was before the LIA.

The LIA lasted around 550 years, BTW and only ended about 163 years ago.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39274 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why papers are evaluated by the scientific community over time.
<quoted text>
Logical fallacy.
We don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.
When scientists do evaluate the evidence, they find it very likely that the energy imbalance is still present and the extra heat is entering the deep ocean.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Pap...
You stated: We don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.

But knowing that you don’t know everything should keep one from saying that we definitively and unequivocally know that manmade CO2 emissions will bring catastrophic damage to the planet. By not knowing everything, there is no way to predict outcomes, as can be seen especially from the Met Office.

From your link, it states this:

The purpose of this report is to assess the significance of the current pause and its potential
causes, using observations and simulations with STATE-OF-THE-ART CLIMATE MODELS….The current pause in global surface temperature rise is not exceptional, based on recent model simulations.

But yet the Met Office in 2007 said this:

Here is the climate forecast for the next decade; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.

And the Met Office said this in the same article:

Earlier computer models attempted to make projections up to 100 years into the future and to do this only needed approximate information on the current state of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, since the biggest effect comes from global warming. But their predictions were relatively uncertain over around a decade. The new model developed by a team led by Dr Doug Smith can make these shorter term predictions SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ACCURATELY because it incorporates information about the actual state of the ocean and the atmosphere today, so it is possible to predict both the effects of natural factors, such as changes in ocean circulation, and those caused by burning fossil fuels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...

The Met Office never predicted a pause for this time period with their significantly more accurate climate model. So all of their prior climate models have predicted wrong outcomes and now I’m supposed to believe this new state-of-art climate model actually gives out accurate predictions?

Here’s the problem….your link states this: The scientific questions posed by the current pause in global surface warming require us to understand in much greater detail the flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system. Current observations are not detailed enough or of long enough duration to provide definitive answers on the causes of the recent pause, and therefore do not enable us to close the Earth’s energy budget. These are major scientific challenges that the research.

So if there is little understanding of the details of flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system, how does a climate model come even close to being accurate?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39275 Sep 17, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
"Brain dead denier" Nº 4 says:
This thread is way out of date, "Once slow-moving threat, global warming ..." has slowed to a speed that appears slow to the average snail.
Time to scrap it, for:
Once slow-moving threat, glowbull warming has decelerated to an even slower pace than before, probably because the temperature has risen to what it was before the LIA.
The LIA lasted around 550 years, BTW and only ended about 163 years ago.
Hey Earthling!! Of course it's slow right now, they predicted this standstill, at least that's what they want us to believe and even though they are uncertain about the clouds, the sun, the ocean, the climate sensitivity, they still know everything else and nothing will stop catastrophic AGW or disprove the AGW hypothesis, because you know, the heat is just hiding somewhere right now, just waiting to come roaring back.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39276 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated: We don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.
But knowing that you don’t know everything should keep one from saying that we definitively and unequivocally know that manmade CO2 emissions will bring catastrophic damage to the planet.
It certainly is a good excuse for science deniers like you to dismiss the evidence.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39277 Sep 17, 2013
krusty wrote:
The Met Office never predicted a pause for this time period with their significantly more accurate climate model.
Round and round with the same old lies: didn't we discuss the fact that Met Office models predict a pause like this twice a century?

Tedious clown!
SpaceBlues

United States

#39278 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Earthling!! Of course it's slow right now, they predicted this standstill, at least that's what they want us to believe and even though they are uncertain about the clouds, the sun, the ocean, the climate sensitivity, they still know everything else and nothing will stop catastrophic AGW or disprove the AGW hypothesis, because you know, the heat is just hiding somewhere right now, just waiting to come roaring back.
Hey the DENSE one, why don't you get it? It is the CO2!

The global warming is one symptom of the CO2 malady..

global climate change
sea-level rise
ocean acidification
species extinctions
increased malaria and other diseases
food shortages
habitat destruction
civil unrest a la Arab Spring
resource wars
floods
droughts
climate refuges
..
SpaceBlues

United States

#39279 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated: We don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.
But knowing that you don’t know everything should keep one from saying that we definitively and unequivocally know that manmade CO2 emissions will bring catastrophic damage to the planet. By not knowing everything, there is no way to predict outcomes, as can be seen especially from the Met Office.
From your link, it states this:
The purpose of this report is to assess the significance of the current pause and its potential
causes, using observations and simulations with STATE-OF-THE-ART CLIMATE MODELS….The current pause in global surface temperature rise is not exceptional, based on recent model simulations.
But yet the Met Office in 2007 said this:
Here is the climate forecast for the next decade; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.
And the Met Office said this in the same article:
Earlier computer models attempted to make projections up to 100 years into the future and to do this only needed approximate information on the current state of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans, since the biggest effect comes from global warming. But their predictions were relatively uncertain over around a decade. The new model developed by a team led by Dr Doug Smith can make these shorter term predictions SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ACCURATELY because it incorporates information about the actual state of the ocean and the atmosphere today, so it is possible to predict both the effects of natural factors, such as changes in ocean circulation, and those caused by burning fossil fuels.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...
The Met Office never predicted a pause for this time period with their significantly more accurate climate model. So all of their prior climate models have predicted wrong outcomes and now I’m supposed to believe this new state-of-art climate model actually gives out accurate predictions?
Here’s the problem….your link states this: The scientific questions posed by the current pause in global surface warming require us to understand in much greater detail the flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system. Current observations are not detailed enough or of long enough duration to provide definitive answers on the causes of the recent pause, and therefore do not enable us to close the Earth’s energy budget. These are major scientific challenges that the research.
So if there is little understanding of the details of flows of energy into, out of, and around the Earth system, how does a climate model come even close to being accurate?
You are DENSE!

It is the CO2, fool!

Read again my previous post.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39280 Sep 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hey the DENSE one, why don't you get it? It is the CO2!
The global warming is one symptom of the CO2 malady..
global climate change
sea-level rise
ocean acidification
species extinctions
increased malaria and other diseases
food shortages
habitat destruction
civil unrest a la Arab Spring
resource wars
floods
droughts
climate refuges
..
climate refugees
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39281 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Round and round with the same old lies: didn't we discuss the fact that Met Office models predict a pause like this twice a century?
Tedious clown!
I'm sorry, what part of this prediction shows the pause to be happening from 2004-2014? We should already be roaring back with temperatures greater than 1998.

Although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record. Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39282 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly is a good excuse for science deniers like you to dismiss the evidence.
What evidence? There is nothing catastrophic about the warming we are experiencing. No alarming sea level rise, no increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, droughts, floods. Just what one would see in a warming world coming out of the LIA.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39283 Sep 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hey the DENSE one, why don't you get it? It is the CO2!
The global warming is one symptom of the CO2 malady..
global climate change
sea-level rise
ocean acidification
species extinctions
increased malaria and other diseases
food shortages
habitat destruction
civil unrest a la Arab Spring
resource wars
floods
droughts
climate refuges
..
You forgot prostitution, bar fights, increased shark attacks, severe acne, heroin addiction, and the death of the winter wardrobe.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39284 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
What evidence? There is nothing catastrophic about the warming we are experiencing. No alarming sea level rise, no increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, droughts, floods. Just what one would see in a warming world coming out of the LIA.
The LIA lasted about 550 years, quite a few generations of humans lived and died without ever knowing the joy of a winter that didn't cause mass death.

Warming should be welcomed with open arms, it might not last very long, especially if it's left to humans to control.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39285 Sep 17, 2013
SpamBrat wrote:
climate refugees
What happened to the 50 million the UN promised us by 2010?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39286 Sep 17, 2013
A crack in the global warming conspiracy theory:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/new-stu...

I thought the NAS was one of the main players in the global warming hoax. What's up with this? Are they traitors?

Naw, they just looked at the evidence and came to a scientific conclusion. Like they always do.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39287 Sep 17, 2013
krusty wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry, what part of this prediction shows the pause to be happening from 2004-2014?
We discussed that before: ocean circulation is stochastic.

Tedious clown.

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) 2 min Injudgement 1,509,859
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Orange County Coast 239,608
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 3 hr SweLL GirL 10,504
Obama has LEAK under sink. 8 hr Troy the true Plu... 41
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Dudley 8,077
White country boys know how to shoot! 10 hr Ashole Bahboon 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr CrunchyBacon 105,065

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages