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

Full story: Newsday 46,971
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39320 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of these predictions are made with climate models that can't even predict 6 years into the future.
Another motto of the warmists:

All our predictions are predicate on the next.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39321 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot, learn to read.
The first chart shows the number of catastrophic weather events.
The second chart shows the number of Category 5 storms.
Two different things; no one has been playing with the charts. You're just too stupid to understand them!
No idiot. You are comparing the wrong charts. Compare the 2 charts that have the same heading:

GREAT WEATHER CATASTROPHES: The ones that have 3 colors to each bar with the legend that states: Meteorological events, hydrological events, and climatological events. The first one is on the 350.org website and then you compare it to the chart on the Tamino website. So you are just too stupid to understand what charts to compare. Why do you think I listed 2 different sites?

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

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

Phoenix, AZ

#39322 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental.
It says it still stands by its longer-term projections that forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
....
A Met Office spokesman said "this definitely doesn't mean any cooling - there's still a long-term trend of warming compared to the 50s, 60s or 70s.
"Our forecast is still for temperatures that will be close to the record levels of the past few years.
"And because the natural variability is based on cycles, those factors are bound to change the other way at some point."
......
A paper published last month in the journal Climate Dynamics, authored by scientists from the Met Office and 12 other international research centres, combined different models to produce a forecast for the next decade.
It said: "Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."
However the paper concluded that, "in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
"Decadal climate prediction is immature, and uncertainties in future forcings, model responses to forcings, or initialisation shocks could easily cause large errors in forecasts."

Translation: We can't get the short term right, but we're positive about the long term. Keep sending the checks.

A warmist,'Get out of jail free' card.

LOL
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39323 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
No, excuse me, one chart covers 1950-2009. The other covers 1980-2011.

I guess the bars did move. That's because the time span moved.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39324 Sep 17, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah turn on the news, unless of course if you only watch Fox which just shows news from the US and whatever international news they can bash Obama with. But other news services will show these flash floods occurring everywhere with a lot more frequency than once in a 100 year chance. So what is causing this increase (factual), well the Gods must be getting angry, so why are you thankful?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/...
"But other news services will show these flash floods occurring everywhere with a lot more frequency than once in a 100 year chance."

Ooo... a dire prediction.

Tell me, what's at stake if you're wrong?

Nothing.

See a pattern?
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#39325 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The prediction is for 2014, so it hasn't failed yet.
The fact that Met Office revised their own forecast is a strong indication of failure.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39326 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No idiot. You are comparing the wrong charts. Compare the 2 charts that have the same heading:
GREAT WEATHER CATASTROPHES: The ones that have 3 colors to each bar with the legend that states: Meteorological events, hydrological events, and climatological events. The first one is on the 350.org website and then you compare it to the chart on the Tamino website. So you are just too stupid to understand what charts to compare. Why do you think I listed 2 different sites?
http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/catast...
Yes, idiot, one graph covers 60 years. The other covers 30 years.

Don't you think 30 years more data would make a difference in the height of the bars?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39327 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, idiot, one graph covers 60 years. The other covers 30 years.
Don't you think 30 years more data would make a difference in the height of the bars?
Please explain your logic....I picked the year 1993 in both charts. In the first chart 1993 had 1400 weather events, in the 2nd chart it was down to 600. So tell me how by starting at 1980 instead of 1950, the year 1993 had 800 less extreme weather events.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39328 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What can I say? You obviously can't read.
It's always these crooked scientists. But not everybody is like you, boy. Dishonest and dumb.
And this ain't the first study to show that the scientific consensus on global warming is in the 90th+ percentile.
I'll explain it in Mississippi terms. I'll even use caps where they belong since that usually seems to stump you people.

Science doesn't dispute that climate has been changing, nor do I for that matter.

LOL...

Where you fail with honesty....or either you're dumb.....science hasn't shown that it's man's use of fossil fuels that have caused climate change.

Some say it could....some say it might....some say the evidence indicates. Show me ONE scientist who can quantitatively show that man made CO2 is definitively responsible for impacting the climate (ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!!!).
The only people making those claims and conclusions are dolts like you. Find one scientist who claims to back up what you people claim with the degree of certainty you religious fanatics spout. Please?

Crooks are everywhere......even on Topix, you liberty thief.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39329 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain your logic....I picked the year 1993 in both charts. In the first chart 1993 had 1400 weather events, in the 2nd chart it was down to 600. So tell me how by starting at 1980 instead of 1950, the year 1993 had 800 less extreme weather events.
uh, les see...

Thirty fewer years? A difference in the size of the catastrophes, maybe?

G....sus!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39330 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain your logic....I picked the year 1993 in both charts. In the first chart 1993 had 1400 weather events, in the 2nd chart it was down to 600. So tell me how by starting at 1980 instead of 1950, the year 1993 had 800 less extreme weather events.
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?

Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39331 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?
Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
OMG, I'm dealing with dumber and dumber. So by the way you read charts, the year 2009 only had 3 extreme weather events the entire year.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39332 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
uh, les see...
Thirty fewer years? A difference in the size of the catastrophes, maybe?
G....sus!
Again, dumb and dumber. How do the amount of weather events in a single year change whether you start the chart at 1950 or 1980? What if I started the 1980 chart in 1990. Would that change the amount of weather events in 2010 or would the amount stay the same? If it changes, how come?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39333 Sep 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I'll explain it in Mississippi terms. I'll even use caps where they belong since that usually seems to stump you people.
Science doesn't dispute that climate has been changing, nor do I for that matter.
LOL...
Where you fail with honesty....or either you're dumb.....science hasn't shown that it's man's use of fossil fuels that have caused climate change.
Some say it could....some say it might....some say the evidence indicates. Show me ONE scientist who can quantitatively show that man made CO2 is definitively responsible for impacting the climate (ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!!!).
The only people making those claims and conclusions are dolts like you. Find one scientist who claims to back up what you people claim with the degree of certainty you religious fanatics spout. Please?
Crooks are everywhere......even on Topix, you liberty thief.
It is convenient for you to ignore the daily manmade CO2 emissions of 90 million tons, HUH.

That's both quantitatively and definitely manmade. In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's, DUH!

Elizabeth O'Bagy must be related to you, LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39334 Sep 17, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that Met Office revised their own forecast is a strong indication of failure.
Why?

Remember you are not qualified to judge. If you have a better forecast, publish it where Met Office does. Nuff said, DUH!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39335 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
global warming deniers
coal company shills
oil empire cheerleaders
climate science morons
sans science morons?
forecast beggers?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39336 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, dumb and dumber. How do the amount of weather events in a single year change whether you start the chart at 1950 or 1980? What if I started the 1980 chart in 1990. Would that change the amount of weather events in 2010 or would the amount stay the same? If it changes, how come?
On the 1950-2009 graph, there are 14 great weather events for 1993. FOURTEEN!

On the Weather Catastrophes Worldwide graph, there are 600 for 1993. SIX HUNDRED!

Obviously, Dumbest, the two charts are not comparable, unless you want to deny that they show 1993 catastrophes increasing from 14 to 600.

No wonder I couldn't follow your reasoning. You don't have any!

The two charts have different names. The Y axis is graded differently. They cover different time periods.

How the bars could change using different numbers of years or time periods is exemplified by Hurricane Camille was once number one before 2005. It became #2 following Katrina. Extend the chart to 2012 and you pick up Sandy, which is now #1 (I think), making the other two fade back. As the years go on and the storms get stronger, Camille may drop off the chart at some distant date.

I'm not going to explain this to your dumbass again. Just try to remember that 600 is more than 14.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39337 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, I'm dealing with dumber and dumber. So by the way you read charts, the year 2009 only had 3 extreme weather events the entire year.
You started off comparing two completely different graphs and then wonder why the numbers have changed.

DUH. DUH-MASS!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39338 Sep 17, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I'll explain it in Mississippi terms. I'll even use caps where they belong since that usually seems to stump you people.
Science doesn't dispute that climate has been changing, nor do I for that matter.
LOL...
Where you fail with honesty....or either you're dumb.....science hasn't shown that it's man's use of fossil fuels that have caused climate change.
Some say it could....some say it might....some say the evidence indicates. Show me ONE scientist who can quantitatively show that man made CO2 is definitively responsible for impacting the climate (ONE WAY OR THE OTHER!!!).
The only people making those claims and conclusions are dolts like you. Find one scientist who claims to back up what you people claim with the degree of certainty you religious fanatics spout. Please?
Crooks are everywhere......even on Topix, you liberty thief.
How far back should I go? I guess Callendar is good enough. Look him up.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39340 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
On the 1950-2009 graph, there are 14 great weather events for 1993. FOURTEEN!
On the Weather Catastrophes Worldwide graph, there are 600 for 1993. SIX HUNDRED!
Obviously, Dumbest, the two charts are not comparable, unless you want to deny that they show 1993 catastrophes increasing from 14 to 600.
No wonder I couldn't follow your reasoning. You don't have any!
The two charts have different names. The Y axis is graded differently. They cover different time periods.
How the bars could change using different numbers of years or time periods is exemplified by Hurricane Camille was once number one before 2005. It became #2 following Katrina. Extend the chart to 2012 and you pick up Sandy, which is now #1 (I think), making the other two fade back. As the years go on and the storms get stronger, Camille may drop off the chart at some distant date.
I'm not going to explain this to your dumbass again. Just try to remember that 600 is more than 14.
I seriously can't believe you are this stupid. The Y axis is in 100's. So when you see a 2 that means 200. When you see a 3 that means 300 and so on and so forth and when you see 14 that means 1400. Do you really believe that from 1950 to 2009, not one year had more than 14 combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes, and forest fires worldwide? The only difference between the y axis in the 1950-2009 chart and the 1980 to 2011 chart is that the 1980-2011 chart actually says 200, 300, etc. Where do you get that a storm drops off the chart. These charts are just counts of weather events for insurance companies. Why would they drop off storms? How would that help the insurance company determine how many storms there have been in the past compared to the present? So it has been changed as their prior chart had a 1400 count of combined storms, floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, hurricanes and forest fires and then in their new chart it dropped to 600. You really have no critical thinking skills if you think this chart showed at most 14 extreme weather events in any one year from 1950 to 2009.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min DBWriter 1,114,647
Abia State University, Direct entry admission c... 7 min prof vicktor 1
Abby 9-30 10 min edogxxx 2
Amy 9-30 13 min edogxxx 2
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 35 min Rogue Scholar 05 178,568
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 41 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,544
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 54 min Frijoles 69,461
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr edogxxx 98,321

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 ]