Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61530 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.

SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40416 Oct 7, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
What caused the "Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean?"
The answer requires you to know science and mathematics. Without knowledge, you have no idea, yes?
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40417 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not be from a farm background. My grandparents came from the Appalachian Mountains, where people existed as subsistence farmers for many generations. All it takes is a little plot of level ground in a creek valley or "hollow". I still know most of those subsistence farming skills and I passed it along to my daughter and her husband, who is also from a farming background.
You could do it on the northern Plains too provided that the area does not turn into the Dust Bowl again. I know a college professor who recently bought an old abandoned homestead and 160 acres of basically wasteland (meaning not suited to mechanized agriculture)in South Dakota as insurance against a societal breakdown. He's a city boy and so's his wife, but they are actually learning how to farm, raise livestock (pigs and chickens), and hunt - just in case. Please don't think they (or me) are "Survivalist" types that want to live in a bunker/armory. We're not. But the handwriting appears to be on the wall for some sort of global catastrophe - enviormental, economic, societal - a sort of perfect super storm of everything coming together at once.
I am not.

Do you think a typical denier is already set for farming?

SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40418 Oct 7, 2013
There's no way the dense oldkristy could write replies to Fair Game. It must be a denier committe, LOL. Five in a row, wow.

Still wrong, though. Thoroughly WRONG!
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#40419 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:
Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability.
There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.
Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.
Very helpful contribution for better understanding the significance of the AR5.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40420 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
And still more (rising seas):
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warmin...
I've pretty much decided that the deniers and "warming is good" crowd and the preachers who think that global warming is a necessary prelude to the famines of the Apocalypse have already won this fight.
I've started looking for a place somewhere in the remote northern Rockies, a little isolated valley with a rock shelter or a cave where I can establish a refuge for my daughter and her family to flee to when the time comes.
Do this, Farmer.

http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx...
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#40421 Oct 7, 2013
Here is a typical view of CC before the AR5:

"Modeling of possible future changes with increased greenhouse gases has also been limited. However, several studies suggest that recent observed trends towards more intense extra-tropical storms (cyclones) in the northern hemisphere may be a part of human induced climate change. For example, from the Canadian Climate-model runs, it was concluded that although the total number of winter cyclones would decrease with increased greenhouse gases there would be an increase in frequency of very intense storms. This suggests that more of the precipitation (snow and rain) would occur in intense bursts, and there would be more frequent wind damages. The U.K. Meteorological Office model suggests a poleward shift and intensification of Northern Hemisphere storm tracks with the most spectacular increase in intensity in eastern Atlantic and western Europe. These results are consistent with observed increase in Northern Hemisphere severe storms and North Atlantic significant wave heights over the past 3 decades." And for a typical reaction to these scientific "facts" just review any number of past posts by Climate Science 'Faithful'.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40422 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about science and you are talking about politics.
LOL.

You've repeatedly proved that you don't know science when somebody whacks you over the head with it.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40423 Oct 7, 2013
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.

I really like the way that rolls off the page.

And close enough to the truth to satisfy me. With so many lies being posted here by deniers, I don't feel any pressure to be precise. It's a close enough approximation.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40424 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your rationalization is kicking in here by you trying to downplay the importance of climate sensitivity. It is actually very important. Catastrophic AGW depends on a high climate sensitivity. The AR5 has lowered the climate sensitivity parameters and now for the first time has given no best estimate of climate sensitivity due to lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
So they are now less confident in climate sensitivity, but are more confident than ever that we will have catastrophic AGW. This is what you are trying to rationalize.
*Even if* the climate sensitivity is a bit lower, we're still putting enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise temperatures to a dangerous level.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40426 Oct 7, 2013
The report found that global warming was unequivocal, with the atmosphere and ocean warming, the amount of snow and ice diminishing, sea levels rising and the concentrations of greenhouse gases rising.

Each of the previous three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 with the last likely to be the warmest period in 1,400 years in the Northern Hemisphere.

Over the last two decades the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost mass, glaciers have shrunk almost worldwide and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased.

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th Century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia.

The report found that human influence on the climate system was clear and evident from increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas which will continue to impact on all aspects of the climate system.

Prof Sutton said:“All the evidence makes it clear that leaving the issue of climate change for future generations to deal with is a phenomenally high-risk option.

“The report shows that the evidence of human activities affecting climate is increasingly widespread and stronger than ever.

“It shows there is a very substantial risk of exceeding 2C warming, relative to pre-industrial climate, by the end of the century.

“Only under a very ambitious scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a warming of more than 2C considered to be unlikely.

“This report provides the evidence that governments need to take tough decisions on climate change policy.[U Reading]
Breaking

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40427 Oct 7, 2013
Turns out some of the thermometers were in the shade (tree growth) back in the early 1900's. All the data has been deemed tainted.
litesong

Everett, WA

#40428 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
That means that AGW is in the high 90's....... even in the winter!
litesong

Everett, WA

#40429 Oct 7, 2013
motheaten wrote:
If you really believed in the manure you're spreading......
Manure is natural...... toxic topix AGW denier "manure" comes from oil, energy, business, re-pubic-lick-un upper floor boardroom PEE-R propaganda POOP with no cleansing through science journals, mathematics or upper education, at all.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40430 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea how looking at observations is partisan. I look at past predictions made by AGW scientists and compare them to the observations of today. There is nothing political or partisan about that. I guess it's your way to rationalize my posts so you can dismiss them. Whatever.
But here is a past prediction:
An article written in 2009 stated a new paper coming out that was supposed to “silence the skeptics.” It stated that the world would heat up 150% more than IPCC predictions in the next 5 years. The Met Office also came out in 2007 stating that global warming would come roaring back by 2009 and by 2014 would be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004. One of the comments in the comments sections said this:
“Contrary to the subheading, rapid warming in the next five years certainly will not silence the sceptics-- it's hard to imagine that anything could. They'll just say that it's solar activity, as they've said all along, and El Niño, nothing to do with us, and not worth lifting a finger to do anything about it.”
So funny how it is you that is now rationalizing. You are the ones coming up with excuses such as the heat is in the deep oceans. The skeptics have been saying that AGW is not catastrophic and that the warming has been largely due to natural variability, which in fact fits better into the climate models than the CO2 driver model.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/j...

And of course, 2010 was a record year.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...

And the next El Nino year will very likely be an even higher record.
Mothra

United States

#40431 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
I really like the way that rolls off the page.
And close enough to the truth to satisfy me. With so many lies being posted here by deniers, I don't feel any pressure to be precise. It's a close enough approximation.
So... no numbers to back up the percentages?

Without some evidence you're statement is faith based, and not science.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40433 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:
Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability.
There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.
Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.
Whitehouse: We agree that climate change is happening.

Pielke: Yes

Whitehouse: We agree that we should both mitigate and adapt in response to that change.

Pielke: Yes

Whitehouse: We both find the IPCC reports credible?

Pielke: Yes.

Whitehouse: Can we also agree that a body of credible research projects that extreme weather events could increase in frequency and intensity due to manmade carbon dioxide emission.

Pielke: Yes, that's certainly the case and if you look at the literature you'll find many such projections.

....warmer oceans energise storms. More evaporation leads to more intense precipitation. "Yes, that's absolutely true" was Pielke's response.

On drought: Pielke says: There are trends in some places of increasing drought and in other places of decreasing drought but over the whole world there is no discernible trend.... That is the point, isn't it. That climates in different regions are changing. In those places where there is increasing drought, that's what people are concerned about.

On wildfires: Pielke says it's very plausible that there could be an increase in the number of western wildfires for example.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/roy-spence...
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40434 Oct 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So... no numbers to back up the percentages?
Without some evidence you're statement is faith based, and not science.
The evidence is you don't know grammar.

Or science! Or mathematics!
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40435 Oct 7, 2013
Breaking wrote:
Turns out some of the thermometers were in the shade (tree growth) back in the early 1900's. All the data has been deemed tainted.
What's your point? Did you read my post before it?

You could possibly learn something from it.. like you are clueless.
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40436 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I am not.
Do you think a typical denier is already set for farming?
No. A typical denier is not set for farming or any other kind of adaptive change. He/she does not think that adaptation and or change is needed. Their thinking is "No problem; no need to change or prepare for the consequences; since there is no problem to begin with."

Their thinking is sort of like that of the White Star Line managers who decided that the Titanic didn't need as many life boats as the naval engineer who designed the ship said she needed and so reduced the number by two-thirds. I can almost hear what someone said in the board meeting when that decision was made, "Lifeboats! Why go to all that expense. The Titanic's not going to sink!"

The religious people who think that Global Warming is real, and that it is a necessary agent of the Famine during the Tribulations aren't interested in preparing either. They expect the so-called "Rapture" (which is a complete fraud and heresy cooked up by a succession of crackpot preachers starting with one named Darby in the 1820s) and won't be on earth to face the consequences.

Realists are the ones who anticipate disasters, try to head them off, and prepare just in case.
Mothra

United States

#40437 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
No. A typical denier is not set for farming or any other kind of adaptive change. He/she does not think that adaptation and or change is needed. Their thinking is "No problem; no need to change or prepare for the consequences; since there is no problem to begin with."
Their thinking is sort of like that of the White Star Line managers who decided that the Titanic didn't need as many life boats as the naval engineer who designed the ship said she needed and so reduced the number by two-thirds. I can almost hear what someone said in the board meeting when that decision was made, "Lifeboats! Why go to all that expense. The Titanic's not going to sink!"
The religious people who think that Global Warming is real, and that it is a necessary agent of the Famine during the Tribulations aren't interested in preparing either. They expect the so-called "Rapture" (which is a complete fraud and heresy cooked up by a succession of crackpot preachers starting with one named Darby in the 1820s) and won't be on earth to face the consequences.
Realists are the ones who anticipate disasters, try to head them off, and prepare just in case.
Well Farmer, your posts have just dropped into the pen of total bullshyt.

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) 7 min Cookie9904 1,434,058
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 19 min blurred lines 103,660
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 47 min Buster Chopin 225,559
News LOL! Chicago Tribune tells its readers to vote ... 58 min former democrat 1
News Why Is Wicker Park's 'Notorious' 6 Corners Stil... 1 hr former democrat 1
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 2,095
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 1 hr RACE 3,211

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages