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

Full story: Newsday 52,426
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Read more
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

Toronto, 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

Phoenix, AZ

#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

Houston, TX

#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

Houston, TX

#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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39390 Sep 18, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>in that case....your scientific claims must be off the charts!
LOL
Awww.. Thanks for your support, LOL.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39391 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Aww you are 1000 SBL units.
...
You must enjoy embarrassing yourself.

Run along sonny... adults are talking here.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39392 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your answer to my question?
You are your own embarrassment. You failed again.
re: embarrassment

I am so thrilled once again to have taught you a new word.

Do run along now... adults are talking here.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39393 Sep 18, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
......do you actually get the joke and see the ridiculousness?1?!
lol
SpaceBlues wrote, "In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's......."

"middleofthedownwronggull y" did not. In other words,

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

Houston, TX

#39394 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You must enjoy embarrassing yourself.
Run along sonny... adults are talking here.
What's your answer to my question?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39395 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?
No response.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
No response.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39396 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Pivot again with you. If you say I misread the chart, then you need to explain what the chart is saying. You can do this by answering the questions I posted.

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?

If I'm misreading the chart then it should be really easy for you to answer the questions, especially the first question. If you won't answer the questions, then it is safe to say you are misreading the chart.

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

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39397 Sep 18, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pivot again with you. If you say I misread the chart, then you need to explain what the chart is saying. You can do this by answering the questions I posted.
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?
If I'm misreading the chart then it should be really easy for you to answer the questions, especially the first question. If you won't answer the questions, then it is safe to say you are misreading the chart.
http://350orbust.com/2010/03/01/icebergs-ice-...
Talk to the hand.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39398 Sep 18, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting... another bit of evidence for the 'global warming as a religion' theory.
Point well taken!
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39399 Sep 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk to the hand.
Every attempt to engage in a discussion about a specific issue results in avoidence behaviors... "Talk to the hand" being the latest.

May your faith give you peace
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39400 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your answer to my question?
..
Again:
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's your answer to my question?
Also:
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No response.
<quoted text>
No response.
Yet:
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
Every attempt to engage in a discussion about a specific issue results in avoidence behaviors...
That's what the deniers do as the evidence shows.

LOL. Denial is your game.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39401 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues wrote, "In terms of energy content, that adds up to 400,000 hiroshima's......."
"middleofthedownwronggull y" did not. In other words,
"middleofthedownwronggull y" continues in the middle of the down wrong gully.
you aren't very well schooled in energy transfers are you, mullet?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39402 Sep 18, 2013
guss you didn't get a 'deeplomer', huh?

btw.....there's actually a number for a thousand thousand thousand thousand.

guess you 'ain't too smart in math either.

i have three letters for you, son. G-E-D go for it!!!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39403 Sep 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Awww.. Thanks for your support, LOL.
you're welcome!! when it comes to ridiculous and ludicrous....you have no peer.

your feigned knowledge of science is the only thing that surpasses those traits.

LOL

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#39404 Sep 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
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.
hmmmmm....what are you going to major in? your posts suggest you haven't earned a degree. possible you haven't gone through puberty either for that matter.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Homer 1,208,040
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 17 min RACE 99,311
amy 3-31-15 18 min alice kravitz 10
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 30 min Red_Forman 5,830
Amy 4-1-15 1 hr Mister Tonka 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Learn to Read 185,990
dear abby4-1-15 again. 1 hr PEllen 2
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]