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

Full story: Newsday 47,017
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39364 Sep 18, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
How far back should I go? I guess Callendar is good enough. Look him up.
Callendar had a knack for discounting data that did not support his contentions....just like pseudo scientists today.
You may want to go further back, son, or fast forward.
Btw... I often wonder why he chose to ignore the 70k records of duerst, kreutz,&misra that documented tremendous increase and decrease in co2 that went counter to his "theory"!!
Lol
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39365 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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?
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?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39366 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
"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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39367 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously I think it is just stupidity.
More like devoted. Remember, you can't argue against faith.

And for some it's really sounding that way.

When shown celebrities and spokesmen are global warming hypocrites, what do you hear from the warmists?

<crickets>

When shown that even leaders of the movement are hypocrites, what do you hear from the warmists?

<crickets>

When shown President Obama is a hypocrite, what do you hear from warmists?

<crickets>

When shown belief in their "science" is a minority in public opinion, what do you hear from the warmists?

<crickets>

So their science isn't accepted by their leaders, their spokesmen, the 'green' President, and the general public, and they spend their time here arguing over every single minute detail of their house of cards "science" instead of they themselves and their scientists marching in the street to demonstrate that this is really a "crisis".

Meanwhile, the budget to 'research' grows and grows, but it's the "evil" oil companies that deserve the scrutiny and ridicule.

It really is amazing that this imminent "crisis" and "catastrophe" has a whole lot of loyal followers led by people who don't act as if it really is one.

But YOU need to change your life.

That's some serious faith there.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39368 Sep 18, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Interesting... another bit of evidence for the 'global warming as a religion' theory.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#39369 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
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?
I'd be surprised if Fuggy responds, he's more likely to pretend he didn't see it.
litesong

Lynnwood, 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

Phoenix, AZ

#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

Lynnwood, WA

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

Houston, TX

#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

Phoenix, AZ

#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

Phoenix, AZ

#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

Houston, TX

#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

Houston, TX

#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

Lynnwood, 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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#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.

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) 10 min Grey Ghosts Colos... 1,115,183
PerfettoPerformanc2010 on eBay 11 min eBayer 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 min Mister Tonka 98,348
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min wojar 178,603
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 48 min KiMare 50,046
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 51 min Wolverine33 4,743
Word (Dec '08) 52 min Wolverine33 4,754

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 ]