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

Full story: Newsday 46,741
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39258 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
"79% of US companies responding
to CDP..."
That leads to a whole lot of questions. How many companies total? How many responded?
"...report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment."
The average business investment?
Gotta be careful with those kinds of generalities.
Space gave you the link; don't wait for the movie, look it up. If you find anything wrong with it, contact the authors.

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39259 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but 12,000 papers weren't used in the "97% calculation", son!!
LOL!!!
guess your english comprehension needs a lot of work, aye?
LOL..
Does removing 6 papers change any percentage?

Did you notice this was a peer-reviewed paper?

Did you see the part where authors were asked to evaluate their own papers and grade where they stood in the debate?

You missed some pretty important stuff, boy.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39260 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
From the abstract:
<quoted text>
So there's no missing heat, and the Earth continues to warm.
That helps your case how?
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."

And as Kevin Trenberth said:

“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”

So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39261 Sep 16, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>have you, wedge?
LOL
with a post like this coming from you....i'll take my link as a grand slam zinger!!
i know how you religious zealots react when you're left speechless after being force fed some factual information.
bwaaahahhahaaaaa
Hahaha you lost!

<shooting from the hip is your mo>
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39262 Sep 16, 2013
Michael Corleone wrote:
Uh, no. You got it wrong. I am not a doomer. On the contrary.
<quoted text>
What? What did you really mean?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39263 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."
And as Kevin Trenberth said:
“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”
So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
You're as predictable as the sunrise and ocean temps rising. The whole basis of any argument you put up its always about the 1% percentile and ignoring the 99%. It's like emptying an hour glass where physics says most of the sand will end up on the ground but your lot argue about the grains of sand that get blown away. It's laughable to say the least. You might want to look at look at David Suzuki's explanation on how you evolved.

http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39264 Sep 16, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
../
Have you seen this?

http://www.courierpostonline.com/usatoday/art...

This week's rains and floods in Colorado were the result of a strong, slow-moving storm at upper levels of the atmosphere located to the west of the state, according to meteorologist Jeff Masters with the Weather Underground. The storm got trapped to the south of an unusually strong ridge of high pressure parked over Western Canada, he says.

The circulation around the storm tapped a plume of extremely moist, monsoonal air from Mexico that pushed up against the mountains and fell as rain on the already saturated ground, soaked from rain earlier in the week, Masters adds.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39265 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well as you said earlier, "There is no guarantee that these papers are right."
This is why papers are evaluated by the scientific community over time.
And as Kevin Trenberth said:
“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”
So I think it's pretty safe to say no one actually has a clue as to actual heat content, where the heat is, if it's missing or not.
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...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39266 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Space gave you the link; don't wait for the movie, look it up. If you find anything wrong with it, contact the authors.
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
Not interested.

Sheesh... take a hint.

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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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

Phoenix, AZ

#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 hideaway, 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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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

Houston, TX

#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
..

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
Word (Dec '08) 35 min andet1987 4,726
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 35 min LRS 178,105
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 51 min Mister Tonka 98,239
Adult Nursing Relationships (May '11) 52 min Handcuff ottoman 137
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMerde 49,882
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 69,402
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Patriangelily 1,110,245
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••