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 46,298 Comments Last updated 41 min ago
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#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

Houston, TX

#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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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 hideaway, 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 hideaway, 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.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, 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 hideaway, 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

Houston, TX

#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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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

Houston, TX

#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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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

Oviedo, 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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 min danetoo 68,360
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 min the real Jonah1 49,467
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min TSM 1,099,938
Militants decapitate four 'Israeli Mossad spies 11 min MailOnline 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 21 min LRS 177,361
Abby 8-29 35 min RACE 5
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 36 min texas pete 4,665
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr edogxxx 97,918
•••
•••

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 ]
•••