Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63591 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.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39288 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.
You really shouldn't let these catastrophists in on our secret, they should be allowed to stew in their own paranoid fear of the unknown.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39289 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nobody ever said the catastrophic effects would be in your lifetime: they will come in your grandchildren's lifetime.

You know, that generation whose future you are selling for a few bucks?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39291 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
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...
This is the key, isn't it: doubt?

It didn't stop all the world's scientific academies from saying that we need to do something about global warming.

Because they are capable of assessing doubt, and they find it no reason for inaction.

But you have proved time and time again that you are incapable of assessing evidence. You make a fool of yourself when you try to talk about science.

Your posts are debunked time and time again yet you post the same arguments over and over.

Why?

Because it's the existence of doubt that is the excuse you need for ignoring the warnings. If future generations ask why you didn't act, you'll point to the doubt.

The doubt was there! I posted it time and time again! I spent hours and hours reading denier blogs and cutting and pasting the doubt!

Future generations will ask why you didn't realise the doubt wasn't enough compared to what we knew.

You will answered that you weren't a scientist, weren't capable of knowing that, and all you knew was that there was doubt.

And that will be your excuse for selling your grandchildren's future.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39292 Sep 17, 2013
FuGyou wrote:
Nobody ever said the catastrophic effects would be in your lifetime: they will come in your grandchildren's lifetime.
You know that for a fact, how, exactly?
Crystal ball?
Ouija board?
Guesswork?
Scientific evidence?

Do you have an approximate date for this catastrophe?

I suppose you realise that you are a loser, don't you, Fuggy?
SpaceBlues

United States

#39293 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the key, isn't it: doubt?
It didn't stop all the world's scientific academies from saying that we need to do something about global warming.
Because they are capable of assessing doubt, and they find it no reason for inaction.
But you have proved time and time again that you are incapable of assessing evidence. You make a fool of yourself when you try to talk about science.
Your posts are debunked time and time again yet you post the same arguments over and over.
Why?
Because it's the existence of doubt that is the excuse you need for ignoring the warnings. If future generations ask why you didn't act, you'll point to the doubt.
The doubt was there! I posted it time and time again! I spent hours and hours reading denier blogs and cutting and pasting the doubt!
Future generations will ask why you didn't realise the doubt wasn't enough compared to what we knew.
You will answer that you weren't a scientist, weren't capable of knowing that, and all you knew was that there was doubt.
And that will be your excuse for selling your grandchildren's future.
Powerful understanding if only available to the uninitiated also ... we could solve our problems. Thanks.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39294 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
apparently you're still missing the important stuff, son!!
Lol
No... I didn't see where they stood in the debate. WHICH IS MY POINT!!!!
A small percentage of the 12000..... The questionnaire was vague in its line of questions....then Cook "cooked the books" with his dishonest math and generalities.
Truth is they lied about the percentages and the actual answers in what the repondents multiple choice answers were all about.
Cook is dishonest....and so are you. Or, you're just plain ole dumb.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39295 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
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.
Your post is possibly cracking.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39296 Sep 17, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You know that for a fact, how, exactly?

Scientific evidence?
Do you have an approximate date for this catastrophe?
Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F [5°C to 6°C] warming over most of the U.S.(see literature review here).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/15/2...

...what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:

Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other regions around the globe that are heavily populated and/or heavily farmed.
Sea level rise of some 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity.
Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
Much more extreme weather
Food insecurity — the increasing difficulty of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
Myriad direct health impacts

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/14/1...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39297 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
We discussed that before: ocean circulation is stochastic.
Tedious clown.
Sorry, that excuse is not going to cut it because let’s look again at what the new and improved climate model was supposed to do as described by the Met Office:

“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.”

So this new model was supposed to be MORE ACCURATE because it was able to predict ocean circulation and atmosphere of today so as to predict both the effects of natural factors and changes in ocean circulation. The prediction couldn’t even make it to 2012 without being revised 2 more times.

kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39298 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody ever said the catastrophic effects would be in your lifetime: they will come in your grandchildren's lifetime.
You know, that generation whose future you are selling for a few bucks?
Oh, so now we can ignore all those people screaming global warming every time there is a flood, drought, hurricane or tornado? Thank God.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39299 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the key, isn't it: doubt?
It didn't stop all the world's scientific academies from saying that we need to do something about global warming.
Because they are capable of assessing doubt, and they find it no reason for inaction.
But you have proved time and time again that you are incapable of assessing evidence. You make a fool of yourself when you try to talk about science.
Your posts are debunked time and time again yet you post the same arguments over and over.
Why?
Because it's the existence of doubt that is the excuse you need for ignoring the warnings. If future generations ask why you didn't act, you'll point to the doubt.
The doubt was there! I posted it time and time again! I spent hours and hours reading denier blogs and cutting and pasting the doubt!
Future generations will ask why you didn't realise the doubt wasn't enough compared to what we knew.
You will answered that you weren't a scientist, weren't capable of knowing that, and all you knew was that there was doubt.
And that will be your excuse for selling your grandchildren's future.
Awwww....fairgame is having a hard time defending all these predictions, so now has to pivot to guilt and children. Next, I'm sure you will be posting all those psychoanalysis papers on the mind of the "denier" and posting I'm paid to be here. Oh wait you just did that in the previous post.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39300 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Every major projection of future warming makes clear that if we keep listening to the falsehoods of the anti-science crowd at the Wall Street Journal and keep taking no serious action to reduce carbon pollution we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F [5°C to 6°C] warming over most of the U.S.(see literature review here).
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/15/2...
...what the recent scientific literature says are the key impacts we face in the coming decades if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. These include:
Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
Permanent Dust Bowl conditions over the U.S. Southwest and many other regions around the globe that are heavily populated and/or heavily farmed.
Sea level rise of some 1 foot by 2050, then 4 to 6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
Massive species loss on land and sea — perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity.
Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
Much more extreme weather
Food insecurity — the increasing difficulty of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, and then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
Myriad direct health impacts
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/14/1...
All of these predictions are made with climate models that can't even predict 6 years into the future.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39301 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now we can ignore all those people screaming global warming every time there is a flood, drought, hurricane or tornado? Thank God.
You ignore them already, krusty.

But the astonishing number of one in a hundred or one in five hundred year floods we are seeing several times a year is a result of global warming.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catast...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39302 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that excuse is not going to cut it because let’s look again at what the new and improved climate model was supposed to do as described by the Met Office:
“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.”
So this new model was supposed to be MORE ACCURATE because it was able to predict ocean circulation and atmosphere of today so as to predict both the effects of natural factors and changes in ocean circulation. The prediction couldn’t even make it to 2012 without being revised 2 more times.
Another krusty kut'n paste.

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

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39303 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Another krusty kut'n paste.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-ne...
Again, another pivot....of course I got the information from somewhere. Did you think I just made it up and I did link the Telegraph article with my original post. But I guess when you can't defend the prediction, you have to attack the messenger.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39304 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignore them already, krusty.
But the astonishing number of one in a hundred or one in five hundred year floods we are seeing several times a year is a result of global warming.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catast...
Looks like Munich Re has been playing around with their graphs. Take at look at this graph showing weather events from 1950 to 2009. Notice how the decade of the 1990s is greater than the decade of 2000s.

http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...

But now their new graph shows the decade of the 1990s with less weather events than the decade of 2000s.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catast...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39305 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, another pivot....of course I got the information from somewhere. Did you think I just made it up and I did link the Telegraph article with my original post. But I guess when you can't defend the prediction, you have to attack the messenger.
The prediction is for 2014, so it hasn't failed yet.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39306 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The prediction is for 2014, so it hasn't failed yet.
Well ok, that means 2014 will have to be 0.73, as 2004 was 0.43 above the average according to Hadcrut3. The warmest year has been 0.52 above the average.

But you keep believing, because the Met Office doesn’t have any confidence in the prediction that they originally had placed high confidence in. They have already changed that prediction 2 times:

The new 2011 prediction: Global average temperature is expected to rise to between 0.36 °C and 0.72 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2012-2016, with values most likely to be about 0.54 °C higher than average.

http://web-beta.archive.org/web/2012020609390...

The new 2013 prediction: Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/...
SpaceBlues

United States

#39307 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The prediction is for 2014, so it hasn't failed yet.
The deniers promote lies unencumbered by science facts.

They are already misrepresenting the unreleased IPCC report, LOL.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39308 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ok, that means 2014 will have to be 0.73, as 2004 was 0.43 above the average according to Hadcrut3. The warmest year has been 0.52 above the average.
But you keep believing, because the Met Office doesn’t have any confidence in the prediction that they originally had placed high confidence in. They have already changed that prediction 2 times:
The new 2011 prediction: Global average temperature is expected to rise to between 0.36 °C and 0.72 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2012-2016, with values most likely to be about 0.54 °C higher than average.
http://web-beta.archive.org/web/2012020609390...
The new 2013 prediction: Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/...
The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.

This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850.

Decadal predictions are specifically designed to predict fluctuations in the climate system through knowledge of the current climate state and multi-year variability of the oceans.

Small year to year fluctuations such as those that we are seeing in the shorter term five year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long term warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/arc...

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 Teaman 1,510,290
Give liberals a stroke! Fight for coal powered... 55 min Trump is the man 1
News Sessions: DOJ will crack down on federal grants... 58 min Trump is the man 1
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,080
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr CrunchyBacon 105,074
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 239,644
Southern Ill will vote to expell Chicago From S... (Sep '15) 2 hr Peoria 5

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages