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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
36,881 - 36,900 of 45,797 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39235
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
Who knows, it could be in the oceans or it could be going out into space.
False.

Satellite observations say it isn't going out into space.

Remember, the paper you posted said:
We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
Regarding your Nature paper, this paper ties the standstill with the cool phase of the PDO, which climate models in the past had not taken into account. This model does fit the temperature standstill we are seeing. So the PDO cooling phase is responsible for the standstill that was not predicted at this time. So tell me how the PDO warm phase was not predominantly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years?
The oceans were warming during the last 30 years, therefore they couldn't have been causing the surface warming.
This paper actually proves my point that climate models have underestimated natural variability.

Peer reviewed paper: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/...
Krusty runs to the denier blogs again to cut'n paste a few papers that they tell her undermine global warming.

Internal variability doesn't mean global warming isn't a problem. It just means warming is slower for a decade or so, then picks up again.
Many peer reviewed papers have been published showing a lower climate sensitivity, here are a couple:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003...
No, not many, but there are a few.

If climate sensitivity is a bit lower, it doesn't mean we don't have to worry about global warming. Our CO2 emissions are so hight that dangerous warming will still result. Even the authors of these papers say so.

And there is no guarantee that these papers are right.

Paleo studies give a higher value.
These studies don't include possible feedbacks- eg CO2 from melting permafrost.
They don't include new data about deep ocean warming.
Fun Facts has posted many peer-reviewed papers on the underestimation of the sun.
fun farts posts garbage.
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39236
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
fun farts posts garbage.
I'm glad you understand that "fun farts" is a more accurate rendering of the poster & is the name I call it continually, tho I was NOT the originator of its accurate name. Also, your understanding of the worthlessness of "fun farts" is accurate.
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39237
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
More worried that Brain_Dead will lose it one day and go postal when reality intrudes on his fantasy.
Years ago, remember when "lyin' brian" blew his top, when someone posted his actual name? & after it allegedly threatened me 4 times, it reminded me that it was way over in Germany & wouldn't come after me. Then later, it told of his numerous flights over Greenland, as it traveled from Europe to the U.S.

Yeah, I agree. "lyin' brian" is dangerous, as are other toxic topix AGW deniers.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39238
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

kristy wrote:
Continued post:
Part of the problem, Loeb said, is that the margin of error on the ocean measurements is large, a legacy of the early 2000s switch from an instrument originally developed in the the 1960s — the expendable bathythermograph, or XBT — to the more accurate Argo float.
Today, roughly 3,200 Argos are traveling the world’s oceans, collecting data as they repeatedly sink to prescribed depths, pop back up again and transmit the information they’ve collected to waiting satellites.
Diving into uncertainty
“Given that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the ocean measurements, given that there was this transition from XBT to Argo right around the time that satellite data and ocean data deviated, it raises a lot questions in my mind about whether you can say there is missing energy,” Loeb said.
His analysis examining the amount of solar radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere estimates the heat content of the upper ocean using three different data sets.
Loeb’s conclusion? That, if you consider the margin of error on the satellite and ocean measurements, the two data sources are in agreement — and there may not be any “missing energy.”
“It’s not to say that it’s not happening,” Loeb said.“It’s just that you can’t easily make that conclusion from the data.”
Not so fast, says Trenberth.“One of the key points of our paper was, when you try to do this inventory and things didn’t add up, if you take things at face value, that is an indicator by itself that the error bars are very large,” Trenberth said.“We were very aware of that — but they shouldn’t be that large.”
Trenberth said he also believes Loeb overestimated the error bars for the satellite data, which show the potential margin of error for those measurements.
But both scientists agree that the ongoing debate over the accounting of Earth’s energy budget demonstrates the need to improve monitoring of the Earth’s climate and to better understand sources of error in older measurements, like the ocean data collected for decades by XBTs.
“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.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01...
So Trenberth is admitting that the estimates are all over the place and admits the there are plenty of unknowns. When I say “missing heat”, it’s because the scientists can’t agree on the missing heat. Who knows, it could be in the oceans or it could be going out into space.
Regarding your Nature paper, this paper ties the standstill with the cool phase of the PDO, which climate models in the past had not taken into account. This model does fit the temperature standstill we are seeing. So the PDO cooling phase is responsible for the standstill that was not predicted at this time. So tell me how the PDO warm phase was not predominantly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years? This paper actually proves my point that climate models have underestimated natural variability.
Peer reviewed paper: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/...
Many peer reviewed papers have been published showing a lower climate sensitivity, here are a couple:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003...
Fun Facts has posted many peer-reviewed papers on the underestimation of the sun.
Your post received a number of judgement Icons that appear to deny the science in your links or the logic of your argument. Amazing how the believers of ACDDCGCDO have become the heretics they have so vociferously condemned.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39239
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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?
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
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39240
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Our CO2 emissions are so high that dangerous warming will still result. Even the authors of these papers say so.
<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."
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39241
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

"WILL" is not a qualifier one will read in 'Climate Science' Forecasts, Models, Studies, Reports, Abstracts, Statements, Conclusions or Endorsements.

"Likely,
May,
Suggest,
Possibly,
Could,
Indicates": yes such will be found in abundance, BUT NOT... "Will"
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39242
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

AlgoreTheTinFoilHatter wrote:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an
unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with
scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA)
(University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998
(NOAA)(University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys
were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm
more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather
"sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the
sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again,
whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years
has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures (NOAA
coolest winter since 2001)
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the
UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Als film was
CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the
warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the
warming (Dr David Evans)
14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.
15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)
16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.
17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot
even be measured
18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently
written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.
Move along folks... Nothing to see here.

“For God & Country”

Since: Aug 13

The Promised Land Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39243
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Let’s look at some so called green energy and global warming.
Windmills: kill 100’s of birds a day country wide
Windmills: Increase ground temperate by 1 degree.
Windmills: Change wind patterns (I am not sure if they are doing what a forest would do in the same location on wind patterns.)
Windmills: Cost 2 million to put up per windmill. Life expectance of windmills 25 years with maintenance return on investment 342 months
This does not look so green to me
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39244
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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."
You are infinitely and definitely wrong.

Daily man-made CO2 emissions amount to 90 million tons! Warming is not the only consequence. Why don't you pay attention to all the other resulting man-made happenings such as global climate change, ocean acidification, species extinctions, sea-level rise, and many others like malaria increase, food shortages, habitat destruction, etc.

You don't understand the way the scientists express their work. They don't talk like you do, LOL. Neither does the President.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39245
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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
It is not a picnic. Read my previous post.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39246
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Link?
So I can read them myself, since I sure as hell don't trust you to comprehend English, nor tell the truth.
Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39247
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

B as in B S as in S wrote:
"WILL" is not a qualifier one will read in 'Climate Science' Forecasts, Models, Studies, Reports, Abstracts, Statements, Conclusions or Endorsements.
"Likely,
May,
Suggest,
Possibly,
Could,
Indicates": yes such will be found in abundance, BUT NOT... "Will"
The new language is "95% certainty".
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39248
Sep 16, 2013
 
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Have you read all that bs?

No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39249
Sep 16, 2013
 
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The new language is "95% certainty".
You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.

Now read this:

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

How about it?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39250
Sep 16, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are confusing things. Wait for the report, silly goose.
Now read this:
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-Glob...
How about it?
How about what?

Meh... I'll wait for the movie.
Bart

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39251
Sep 16, 2013
 
I hate snow too.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39252
Sep 16, 2013
 
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Here's the link you requested, Gomer! Now let's see how well your English comprehension is, son.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-s...
I posted this link back in May or early June. Took a little time to find it, but well worth it. I love damning evidence of pseudoscientific zealotry....and proving I don't lie to known lying idiots.
Here is the abstract. See if you can find where you failed.

Also, six papers out of almost 12,000. Do you think that changes the 97% figure?

What a fool!
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39253
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read all that bs?
No wonder you make no sense. You lost your mind while reading that mindless garbage. Poor poor poster! Pitiful.
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:

The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.

If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39254
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is an interesting quote from the CEO:
The economic case for action is strengthening.
This year, we published the 3% Solution with
WWF showing that the US corporate sector could
reduce emissions by 3% each year between 2010
and 2020 and deliver $780 billion in savings above
costs as a result. 79% of US companies responding
to CDP report higher ROI on emission reductions investments than on the average business investment.
If you follow the money, you'll get green. And vice-versa.
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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

77 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,080,209
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 12 min fearless 67,958
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 45 min Learn to Read 174,642
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 46 min Frijoles 68,377
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 463
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 295
Steve Wilkos : talk show host ? or simple mi... (Feb '08) 1 hr Brink 355
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Sublime1 97,539
Abby 7-24 20 hr Pippa 42
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••