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 (Page 1,851)

Showing posts 37,001 - 37,020 of45,549
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39361
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39362
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39363
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39364
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39365
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39366
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39367
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39368
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39369
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39370
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39371
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39372
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39373
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39374
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39375
Sep 18, 2013
 
motheaten wrote:
You're almost coherent.
I was less scientific than usual.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39376
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39377
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39378
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39379
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39380
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 37,001 - 37,020 of45,549
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

18 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr THE DEBIL 1,072,825
Make 1000$ instantly 3 hr generalwon1 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Obama Suks 48,696
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr andet1987 407
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Midlothian Composer 97,454
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 173,742
Evergreen Park Man Facing Charges In South Side... 5 hr wow 1
•••

Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at July 12 at 8:58PM 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 ]
•••