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
36,941 - 36,960 of 45,822 Comments Last updated 18 hrs ago
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39297
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39298
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39299
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39300
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39301
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39302
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39303
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39304
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39305
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39306
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39307
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39308
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39309
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39310
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

FuGyou wrote:
Every major projection of future warming makes clear that ... taking no serious action ... we face catastrophic 9°F to 11°F [5°C to 6°C] warming over most of the U.S.
I don't live in the US and neither do you, so what about the rest of the world?
FuGyou wrote:
... high temperature rise, especially over land — some 10°F over much of the United States
In two sentences, the temperature has risen 1º F?
FuGyou wrote:
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
ROFLMAO.
There's enough ice to raise sea level by a lot, but not enough to cause that melt rate.
FuGyou wrote:
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
Sounds like it's time to do the world the best favour you can and top yourself, you obviously have nothing left to live for.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39311
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the key, isn't it: doubt?
Not just doubt but MANUFACTURED doubt. Based on faulty logic, misleading statements, etc. Basically propaganda and demagoguery.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Manufactured doubt cannot hold the educated scientist. They see through the scams and have a basis for making their own evaluations. Nobody can fake them out. Well, except for a few wacko's prominently and repeatedly displayed by the denialists. What they lose in credibility they make up for with quantity.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39312
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
There's enough ice to raise sea level by a lot, but not enough to cause that melt rate.
Science is not your strong point, is it?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39313
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Examining elevated fossil beaches and coral reefs along more than a thousand miles of coast, Dr. O’Leary’s group confirmed something we pretty much already knew. In the warmer world of the Eemian, sea level stabilized for several thousand years at about 10 to 12 feet above modern sea level.

The interesting part is what happened after that. Dr. O’Leary’s group found what they consider to be compelling evidence that near the end of the Eemian, sea level jumped by another 17 feet or so, to settle at close to 30 feet above the modern level, before beginning to fall as the ice age set in.

In an interview, Dr. O’Leary told me he was confident that the 17-foot jump happened in less than a thousand years — how much less, he cannot be sure.

.....

... if sea level is capable of rising several feet per century, as Dr. O’Leary’s paper would seem to imply and as many other scientists believe, then babies being born now could live to see the early stages of a global calamity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/tim... ;

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39314
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of these predictions are made with climate models that can't even predict 6 years into the future.
Based on the track record of climate models I'm a little worried now that my grandchildren will be living in an Ice Age.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39315
Sep 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
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/...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39316
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
..
global warming deniers
coal company shills
oil empire cheerleaders
climate science morons

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.

68 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 min TRD 68,041
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Buroc Millhouse Obama 1,081,698
Oh how I love thee, time and again I hear your ... 11 min Fight for your country 1
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min Rogue Scholar 05 174,873
Amy 7-28 15 min Pippa 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 54 min RACE 97,550
Abby 7-28 1 hr RACE 2
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 3:19AM CDT

•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••