Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54341 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.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40392 Oct 7, 2013
Good Homework Fair Game!

It's unfortunate that Krusty is like the 3 monkeys when it comes to climate change. Sees no evil, hears no evil yet for some unexplained reason feels compelled to speak lots of evil disputing what she/he can't see or hear. A bit like Sarah Palin being America's top diplomat.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40393 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No. 5:
<quoted text>
Look for "good news" from science and exaggerate it's importance.
<quoted text>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Correction: its importance...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40394 Oct 7, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>if the EPA was actually busting anyone.....you'd be first, wasteful big mouth mutt!!
LOL
An educated response, NOT.

You are so cooooooool, your brain is frozen, LOL..
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40395 Oct 7, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>no, they don't!! make that bet, though......you'll be out one less buck, son!!
LOL
You are a liar.

Opinion is not reality. Reality is not opinion.
Retired Farmer

Marion, KY

#40396 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer

Marion, KY

#40397 Oct 7, 2013
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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40398 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you are too partisan to actually look at the evidence, so your rationalization is in the psychological form.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_...
Oooo... a psychological analysis.

Right from the pages of skepticalscience, no doubt.

<yawn>
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40399 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.
You must revise because it's not realistic.

What are they going to eat?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40400 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No 1.
<quoted text>
Focus on short term trends.
<quoted text>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/rec...
Oooo... another global warming study. Haven't they predicted just about every whether calamity is global warming?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Looks like you're covered. Whatever happens a 'study' is ready to go.

Yeah... there's some serious 'science' there -- no one is ever wrong, and an you've got a 'study' handy for everything.

<yawn x2>
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40401 Oct 7, 2013
Yawn to infinity..

but say "we must do something to prevent more damages to the world we live in."
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40402 Oct 7, 2013
>>GREEN taxes have already added at least £100 a year to household energy bills and successive governments have viewed the threat of global warming and rising CO2 levels as a as a means of brow-beating the public while making them pay for the privilege.

Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming – hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry.

Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness.

Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical.

But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated.

Scientists are admitting that warnings of global catastrophe were way off the mark.“The odds have come down”, admitted Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at Oxford University who until recently believed that we were in for an apocalyptic temperature rise of five degrees this century.

The new Met Office figures indicate that there has been no significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomme...

Burn the heretics! Burn 'em!

Oh wait... that'll cause more CO2.

Stone the heretics! Stone 'em!

(whew... almost had to buy some more indulgences, I mean 'offsets')
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40403 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Yawn to infinity..
but say "we must do something to prevent more damages to the world we live in."
If you really believed in the manure you're spreading, I've got a solution for you.

Do your part, sit in the dark.

Oh wait... who am I talking to?

A global warming hypocrite.

Run along...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40404 Oct 7, 2013
Troll ignored..

But say:“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."[Professor Rowan Sutton]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40405 Oct 7, 2013
University of Reading scientists have warned the world’s governments not to ignore the findings of the most comprehensive assessment on climate change.

The Fifth Assessment Report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published at a major conference in Stockholm last month.

The landmark report finds that scientists are 95 per cent sure that the humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of global warming since the 1950s.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40406 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
SpaceBlues wrote:
*poof*

More CO2 spewed into the atmosphere courtesy of a global warming hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40407 Oct 7, 2013
New in Nature Climate Change: the entire life cycle of harvesting coal and turning it into gas produces 36 to 82 percent more total greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal directly.
Cut n Paste

Shakopee, MN

#40408 Oct 7, 2013
What caused the "Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean?"
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40409 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you are too partisan to actually look at the evidence, so your rationalization is in the psychological form.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_...
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.

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40410 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No 1.
<quoted text>
Focus on short term trends.
<quoted text>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/rec...
LOL….the Met Office? You mean the Met Office that had to change their 10-year predictions on warming 2 times within 5 years?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#40411 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses no. 4:
<quoted text>
Keep eyes covered and ears closed.
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weath...
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.

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) 6 min Agents of Corruption 1,264,625
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Jacques Ottawa 194,726
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 32 min _Zoey_ 443
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr _Zoey_ 5,383
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr _Zoey_ 6,260
News Grasping abortion debate (Aug '09) 4 hr bbc 11
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr Adolph Dawetter 52,071
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr PEllen 100,306
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages