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

Full story: Newsday 47,596
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39341 Sep 17, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The question and explanations in behalf of our friend from Mississippi are clear and articulate. Perhaps we are observing an extreme case of "Cognitive Avoidance".

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39342 Sep 17, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"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
The only thing worse than the scientific projections are the "sceptic" projections:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39343 Sep 17, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1400? Really? Did you mean 14?
Or are YOU trying to change the facts?
It's those big clown feet again.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39344 Sep 17, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that Met Office revised their own forecast is a strong indication of failure.
The only forecasts that have failed more are those of the "sceptics".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...

So who are you going to believe about the future?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39345 Sep 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing worse than the scientific projections are the "sceptic" projections:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Projec...
\

Wrong again.

It's always worse to cite skepticalscience.

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39346 Sep 18, 2013
>>Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation. They are requesting $1.616 billion dollars. They want $766 million dollars for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Program. This is a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) an increase of 16%. The say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences an increase of 8.1% and Earth Sciences up 8.7%. Oh, and not to be left out we need $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%. That’s a mighty hefty sum of money to dig into if you’re doing climate change research.

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Wa...
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39347 Sep 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How far back should I go? I guess Callendar is good enough. Look him up.
>>Guy Callendar was a superb scientist and an expert on the physics of steam. He wrote a seminal article in 1938 on the potential for increasing levels of CO2 to warm the atmosphere...

By Callendar’s calculation, a doubling in CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would cause about a 1.7 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature. What is interesting about this is that Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today. The reason is that the alarmists’ models build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts....

The modest temperature increase suggested by Callendar, and validated so far by observation, poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict. Callendar himself thought the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would be salutary:

It may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.

It is somewhat ironic that the “science” of global warming has regressed since 1938.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39349 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
>>Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.
The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation. They are requesting $1.616 billion dollars. They want $766 million dollars for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Program. This is a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) an increase of 16%. The say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences an increase of 8.1% and Earth Sciences up 8.7%. Oh, and not to be left out we need $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%. That’s a mighty hefty sum of money to dig into if you’re doing climate change research.
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Wa...
Which one do you belong to ?

For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.

http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...
Jeff

Beckley, WV

#39350 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one do you belong to ?
For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...
Its not just fossil fuel companies getting oiled:

http://www.widgetserver.com/syndication/l/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39351 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
>>Guy Callendar was a superb scientist and an expert on the physics of steam. He wrote a seminal article in 1938 on the potential for increasing levels of CO2 to warm the atmosphere...
By Callendar’s calculation, a doubling in CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would cause about a 1.7 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature. What is interesting about this is that Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today. The reason is that the alarmists’ models build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts....
The modest temperature increase suggested by Callendar, and validated so far by observation, poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict. Callendar himself thought the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would be salutary:
It may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
It is somewhat ironic that the “science” of global warming has regressed since 1938.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08...
Although Callendar's estimates on global warming were quite simple, Dr Hawkins said they had proved fairly accurate compared with modern analysis.

However, some people remain sceptical about the relationship between carbon emissions and climate change first identified by Callendar.

Dr Hawkins said: "Scientists at the time also couldn't really believe that humans could impact such a large system as the climate - a problem that climate science still encounters from some people today, despite the compelling evidence to the contrary."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-...

Can we take it that you're accepting what Callendar said, the world has warmed and we're responsible, and warming will continue?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39352 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
>>Guy Callendar was a superb scientist and an expert on the physics of steam. He wrote a seminal article in 1938 on the potential for increasing levels of CO2 to warm the atmosphere...
By Callendar’s calculation, a doubling in CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm would cause about a 1.7 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature. What is interesting about this is that Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today. The reason is that the alarmists’ models build in hypothetical positive feedback effects in order to generate greater temperature impacts....
The modest temperature increase suggested by Callendar, and validated so far by observation, poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict. Callendar himself thought the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would be salutary:
It may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.
It is somewhat ironic that the “science” of global warming has regressed since 1938.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08...
No, science has progressed since 1998. Of course you'd be better off asking some climate scientists rather than a bunch of lawyers.

A large part of Callendar (1938) discusses the change
in global temperatures that would have been expected
given the observed increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration. The calculations were somewhat hindered by
the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physi
cs,
and by the limited available observations of the infrared
absorption spectrum and carbon dioxide concentrations.
In addition, he considered the energy balance at the
surface instead of the top of the atmosphere.

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/home/hawkins...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39354 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The Y axis is labeled "Number".

If it were in increments of 100, it would be like all other charts that make it clear to the reader, IOW, "Number (in hundreds).

These are two different graphs. Even their names are different. Apples to oranges, idiot.

I really like you calling me stupid when you're the one with the COMPLETE lack of understanding.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#39355 Sep 18, 2013
FuGyou wrote:
Science is not your strong point, is it?
Knowing what to do with it isn't yours, is it?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#39357 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's those big clown feet again.
Yes, it's Krusty the Klown, folks!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39358 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's those big clown feet again.
Oh good, since you totally understand the logic of caveman then maybe you can answer my questions that caveman can’t seem to answer.

1. So do you really believe that Munich RE a re-insurer who tracks natural disasters around the world (to include storms, hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, droughts floods, and extreme temperatures) only tracked 14 natural disasters worldwide in 1993? If you believe that, then Munich Re is saying there were only 3 natural disasters worldwide in 2009. Do you also believe that to be true?

2. If each bar represents a total count for worldwide disasters in a single year, how does the count change for that single year whether the chart starts at 1950 or starts in 1980?

3. According to caveman:“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.”

Can you even explain how a hurricane that was counted in the natural disasters in 2005 would fade back and drop off the chart? Why would a hurricane that was counted in 2005 be dropped off the count of natural disasters in 2005?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39359 Sep 18, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
The question and explanations in behalf of our friend from Mississippi are clear and articulate. Perhaps we are observing an extreme case of "Cognitive Avoidance".
Seriously I think it is just stupidity.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39360 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one do you belong to ?
For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...
"Paranoia runs deep
Into your heart it will creep
Starts when you're always afraid..."

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39361 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>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.
no Irish ancestors in my family lineage.

The sun explodes a 1000 Hiroshima bombs on earth every second!! What do you and the good dr. Hansen propose to do about that?!?! Lol

Maybe you should use a new unit to quantify ridiculousness. How about "spaced out blues ludicrous scale "?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39362 Sep 18, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one do you belong to ?
For the last quarter century, the climate science denial machine, its cogs oiled by fossil fuel money, has been attacking climate science, climate scientists and every official US report on climate change, along with State and local efforts – with the aim of undermining action on climate change.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/09/10/dealing-in-dou...
Oh wow... another 'follow the oil money' drone.

Like I've posed to other warmists, IF you are going to use money sources as an argument against some research and scientists, be prepared to explain all the billions of dollars spent via public coffers on behalf of warmists scientists.

Until you do, I call bullshyt!
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39363 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously I think it is just stupidity.
Perhaps you are right... though, on one occasion I had the opportunity to exchange views on another topic and our friend presented a well reasoned argument.

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) 6 min Buroc Millhouse O... 1,129,389
Rattlesnake Logic 33 min Apologies2BeachBoys 23
Why do REPUBLICS Fail and Fall 39 min NO APATHY 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 41 min Rogue Scholar 05 179,681
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 70,157
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMare 50,776
With apologies to "THE BEACH BOYS"! 4 hr Glen Fry 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Zap Brannigan 98,564

High Wind Warning for Cook County was issued at October 31 at 3:39AM CDT

Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]