Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59451 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

litesong

Snohomish, WA

#39370 Sep 18, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
The sun explodes a 1000 Hiroshima bombs on earth every second!!
The sun doesn't explode a thousand Hiroshima bombs per second on Earth, altho the energy delivered to the Earth from the sun is in your ballpark figure.

But, that's the balance of nature. You sidetrack....... like a sidewinder.

What is out of the balance of nature is back radiation from GHGs, to the extent of 1+ thousand, thousand thousand thousand thousand watts per decade & increasing.

"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully...... with sidewinders.

Mothra

United States

#39371 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun doesn't explode a thousand Hiroshima bombs per second on Earth, altho the energy delivered to the Earth from the sun is in your ballpark figure.
But, that's the balance of nature. You sidetrack....... like a sidewinder.
What is out of the balance of nature is back radiation from GHGs, to the extent of 1+ thousand, thousand thousand thousand thousand watts per decade & increasing.
"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully...... with sidewinders.
You're almost coherent. Give your meds a little more time.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39372 Sep 18, 2013
krusty wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
LOL. First you misread the graph and prove yourself a clown, and then you demand a serious discussion about what the graph shows.

Look, either the insurance company added new data to their database so the numbers changed, or they are in the conspiracy with the climate scientists.

Which one is easier to believe?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39373 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
He also said that increasing C02 was beneficial, "poses no threat, and won’t bring about any of the catastrophic consequences that the alarmists are paid to predict."
Accept that? Or do you prefer your cherry-picked conclusion?
No, because he didn't know in 1938 that we would be on a path not just to doubling CO2, but to quadrupling it.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/figures/ipcc_ddc_co2...

Even at his low estimate of climate sensitivity, he would have recognised the danger at that level outweighed any benefits.

Science moves on; denial doesn't.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39374 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today."
And without billions of research dollars.
So as you can't accuse him of being influenced by money, are you going to accept his conclusion that the world has warmed, we're responsible, and it's going to continue warming?
litesong

Snohomish, WA

#39375 Sep 18, 2013
motheaten wrote:
You're almost coherent.
I was less scientific than usual.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39376 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>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 "?
Thanks for your support.

You are the tops in the new scale 'SBL,' 1000/1000 while Fair Game 1/1000.
Mothra

United States

#39377 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because he didn't know in 1938 that we would be on a path not just to doubling CO2, but to quadrupling it.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/figures/ipcc_ddc_co2...
Even at his low estimate of climate sensitivity, he would have recognised the danger at that level outweighed any benefits.
Science moves on; denial doesn't.
Quadruple? Why not quintuple? or sextuple?

Just leaving some room for future hysteria?

btw, you "know" what he would have thought?

Is clairvoyance a branch of global warming science?
Mothra

United States

#39378 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I was less scientific than usual.
LOL

So when you're more "scientific" your less coherent?

Are there meds for 'mad scientist'?
SpaceBlues

United States

#39379 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun doesn't explode a thousand Hiroshima bombs per second on Earth, altho the energy delivered to the Earth from the sun is in your ballpark figure.
But, that's the balance of nature. You sidetrack....... like a sidewinder.
What is out of the balance of nature is back radiation from GHGs, to the extent of 1+ thousand, thousand thousand thousand thousand watts per decade & increasing.
"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully...... with sidewinders.
That's how to deserve top position in the SBL scale. OTOH you are at the other end along with Fair Game and Caveman1.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39380 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today."
And without billions of research dollars.
You don't track what you posted:

[Fair Game] The calculations were somewhat hindered by the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physics, 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.

These are some of the major avenues laid out by science since Callendar's work. Science builds solid infrastructures in our understanding. How do we know for example about the layers of our atmosphere?
litesong

Snohomish, WA

#39381 Sep 18, 2013
motheaten muffed:
You're almost coherent.
//////////
litesong wrote:
I was less scientific than usual.
//////////
"motheaten" muffed:
So when you're more "scientific" your less coherent?
////////
litesong wrote:
When I'm more scientific, toxic topix AGW deniers cannot understand because they have no science & mathematics degrees, no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their proudly held, but poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas, or no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, at all.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39382 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for your support.
You are the tops in the new scale 'SBL,' 1000/1000 while Fair Game 1/1000.
in that case....your scientific claims must be off the charts!

LOL

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39383 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>That's how to deserve top position in the SBL scale. OTOH you are at the other end along with Fair Game and Caveman1.
kissy-kissy.
get a room.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39384 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun doesn't explode a thousand Hiroshima bombs per second on Earth, altho the energy delivered to the Earth from the sun is in your ballpark figure.
neither does man made co2 emissions!!!

so.....do you actually get the joke and see the ridiculousness?1?!

lol
Jerseyboy For Life

Elkhart, IN

#39385 Sep 18, 2013
If you don't know who is in charge of the World inviromental Watchdog,it's none other then Gorbachev,the ex leader of the USSR,and once big dog of the KGB.He was,and probably still is a "COMMUNIST".This position has given him the tools to finally destroy his arch enemy "CAPITALISM...It appears to me we,the United States seems to be the main target of the inviromentals attacks.And this bunch has done some serious damage to our industries,so now they are going to put a "carbon"tax on us individuals....Wouldn't be surprised if we don't all will lbe required to wear a devise that measures the Co2 we exhaul after each breath we all take.OPPS!,I might have given the Leftist Inviromentalist an idea!!!!.....
Na,I'm sure they have some Lefties looking into it....After all this whole "GLOBAL WARMING"is a H O A X!,much like Obama and Algore are!...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39386 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You don't track what you posted:
[Fair Game] The calculations were somewhat hindered by the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physics, and by the limited available observations of the infrared absorption spectrum and carbon dioxide concentrations.
Frankly, what his work demonstrates is that there is a robust relationship between GHG levels and global temperatures, where he couldn't go TOO far wrong with just rough data.

In his time there was no "aerosols" to worry about and the 'broadening of the bands' for CO2 was not known. Nor is his 'match' to present warming correct in that our rate of warming is slower (matching his erroneous values) while his 'equilibrium' warming is and was wrong.

Science has progressed and the so called 'correctness' of his calculations is more of a 'beginners luck' than accurate. A competent scientists but without all the data.
Mothra

United States

#39387 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You don't track what you posted:
[Fair Game] The calculations were somewhat hindered by the existing understanding of atmospheric radiative physics, 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.
These are some of the major avenues laid out by science since Callendar's work. Science builds solid infrastructures in our understanding. How do we know for example about the layers of our atmosphere?
You really have a comprehension problem...

"Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today."

Duh.

If you can't get a clue, borrow one. You're embarrassing yourself.
SpaceBlues

United States

#39388 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have a comprehension problem...
"Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today."
Duh.
If you can't get a clue, borrow one. You're embarrassing yourself.
Aww you are 1000 SBL units.

Try to comprehend this in support of what I posted:

Here, we present evidence that a human-caused signal can also be identified relative to the larger "total" natural variability arising from sources internal to the climate system, solar irradiance changes, and volcanic forcing. Consistent signal identification occurs because both internal and total natural variability (as simulated by state-of-the-art models) cannot produce sustained global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global...
SpaceBlues

United States

#39389 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have a comprehension problem...
"Callender’s calculations track much more closely with actual temperatures than the formulas that are used by alarmists today."
Duh.
If you can't get a clue, borrow one. You're embarrassing yourself.
What's your answer to my question?

You are your own embarrassment. You failed again.

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
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 min GEORGIA 8,375
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 min Mark Oakley 101,933
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min My New Alias RULES 1,382,454
Politics? 38 min Ferretman 46
Hillary's History 1 hr Screech in hell 57
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Dr Guru 214,282
Catching wild pigs. It's easy. 1 hr Catching Socialists 4
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages