Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63620 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.

litesong

Everett, WA

#40505 Oct 9, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
I like my fast cars as much as the next guy......
As the next guy, I say, "I love high mpg cars, BETTER than the next guy".
litesong

Everett, WA

#40506 Oct 9, 2013
motheaten wrote:
SpaceBlues likes to copy-cat my posts......
"motheaten" does NOT like to copy-cat the education levels of topix AGW advocates.
litesong

Everett, WA

#40507 Oct 9, 2013
Yocal Pillbilly wrote:
You mean the oil that makes your life easier.......
That's why most people waste so much of it.......
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#40508 Oct 9, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
Government shutdown causes National Science Foundation to cancel this fiscal year's research in Antarctica. Because USA operates the airfield there, other countries may have to cancel as well.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/shutdown-canc...
It's like a bonus for the Stupid Party!

Not only do they damage the US economy so they can blame that on Obama in the future, and pointlessly fight a law that is in effect and has been found to be Constitutional, but they get to disrupt climate research and cause the loss of a year's worth of data.

They must be proud!
Mothra

United States

#40509 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
"That's interesting. I wondered who did those measurements and how they went about it. Was it done at the same time every day? Where the thermometers ever moved? Were logs kept of all those measurements?.. stuff like that."
Stuff like any idiot knows that not taking measurements at the same time every day would distort the record. Stuff like "No, the thermometers weren't moved; why would they be? Unless the whole site was moved. Stuff like "logs" are the whole purpose and result of stuff like that.
And perhaps most important to some here... was your grandfather a climate scientist?
The title you're looking for is meteorologist. That's what a person that does stuff like that is usually called.
The stupidity burns!
Aww gee... the devoted warmist is getting all pissy.

But if you can, answer the questions I asked of Jimenez Garcia's grandfather's recollections.

You can't.

Do run along... SpaceBlues' prattle is infecting you all.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40510 Oct 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm... SpaceBlues likes to copy-cat my posts too.
Goodness! You're devolving!
LOL
What is your science background?
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40511 Oct 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah....... just what tea party & re-pubic-lick-un crooked politician toxic AGW deniers want. tea party & re-pubic-lick-un crooked politicians want smaller gov't. A shut down gov't makes for a smaller gov't......
For your information: I was a Republican for almost all my life, until 2007 in fact. One side of my family were Southern unionist Republicans from the Civil War on. The other side were registered Democrats who were really pretty much Independents but registered Democrat so that they could have a vote in local elections (until quite recently the winner of the Democratic primary in the South was the winner in the local election, since the Republicans were too few to even run a candidate in the general election). They voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. The leaders and ideals that my parents and grandparents held up to me were Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Today's so-called Republicans, the Tea Party and the new brand of "conservatives" who are really a queer hybrid of economic libertarians / Christian Reconstructionists, are in no way inheritors of that political tradition. They hijacked the Grand Old Party, and it looks like a suicide hijacking.
Mothra

United States

#40512 Oct 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your science background?
If you've got 'science' put it out there.

If not, don't.

I'm not playing your 'appeal to authority fallacy' game.
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40513 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like a bonus for the Stupid Party!
Not only do they damage the US economy so they can blame that on Obama in the future, and pointlessly fight a law that is in effect and has been found to be Constitutional, but they get to disrupt climate research and cause the loss of a year's worth of data.
They must be proud!
Yep. They're getting just what they want.

Here's some more news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/ear...
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40514 Oct 9, 2013
Something to think about:

Archaeologists and geologists have identified four "megadroughts" on the Great Plains, that is to say prolonged multi-decadal droughts that turned the Plains into a virtual desert. Those megadroughts were:

AD 1021-1051
AD 1130-1170
AD 1240-1265
AD 1360-1382
AD 1434-1481

The last one is associated with collapse of the Anasazi Indian culture in the Southwest. It is also thought to have contributed to the collapse of the Mississippians (the last "Mound Builders")in the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri River basin. The drought was so severe that it forced the buffalo herds off the Plains and eastward across the Mississippi River (there is no evidence of buffalo east of the Mississippi until the 1400s).

Now, we are overdue for another of those cyclical megadroughts. What will happen to America's (and the world's) food producing capacity if Global Warming supercharges it?
Cut n Paste

Eden Prairie, MN

#40515 Oct 9, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The hottest year on record was 1934*
* in the lower 48 states of the continental U.S.
"Globally, 1934 is not the hottest year on record, not even close. Not even close; the ten hottest years on record have all occured since 1990. And #1 is still 2005 (according to GISS) or 1998 (according to HadCRU; it’s really a “statistical tie”)."
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before...
Now the experts say that is NOT correct:

"Current Issue > vol. 108 no. 29 > Robert K. Kaufmann, 11790–11793
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stockc
Author Affiliations

Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011)

Abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."
Breaking

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40516 Oct 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting. I wondered who did those measurements and how they went about it. Was it done at the same time every day? Where the thermometers ever moved? Were logs kept of all those measurements?.. stuff like that.
And perhaps most important to some here... was your grandfather a climate scientist?
But you're running into the 'science is settled' anti-science crowd; if they have an 'expert' who says otherwise, no amount of contrary information will be accepted nor tolerated.
Look for them to mock 'real world' measurements for their computer models that say otherwise.
As my wise grandfather used to say:

"A hundred years from now the earth will be warmer. Or the earth will be cooler. It will not be the same"

He loved to drink whiskey.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40517 Oct 9, 2013
I'm lucky he's not my grandfather.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40518 Oct 9, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Now the experts say that is NOT correct:
"Current Issue > vol. 108 no. 29 > Robert K. Kaufmann, 11790–11793
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stockc
Author Affiliations
Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011)
Abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."
Now is not 2011 but 2013.

One paper at a time, a denier digs for its own ignorance. Alas...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40519 Oct 9, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
If you've got 'science' put it out there.
If not, don't.
I'm not playing your 'appeal to authority fallacy' game.
It is apparent that you have no science background so I suppose for you ignorance is bliss.

LOL, appealing to authority is a game? That makes Fox and friends equal.....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40520 Oct 9, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Now the experts say that is NOT correct:
"Current Issue > vol. 108 no. 29 > Robert K. Kaufmann, 11790–11793
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
Robert K. Kaufmanna,1, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stockc
Author Affiliations
Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011)
Abstract
Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."
Perhaps it is a result of changes in the ocean.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n74...

"Our results show that the current hiatus[slowdown in atmospheric warming] is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40521 Oct 9, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Now the experts say that is NOT correct:
No, it's not any more,'cos the the 1934 record was broken in the US in 2012.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40523 Oct 9, 2013
AND..

By the year 2047 the mean air temperature around the planet will shift completely out of the range seen in recent history. From that point on, even a cold year will be warmer than any warm year from 1860 to 2005 if nations continue to emit carbon dioxide the way they do now. And the new extreme temperatures—the new normal—will first occur not in the Arctic but in the tropics, where people, plants and wildlife are least equipped to adapt. That disquieting analysis comes from a massive new study led by Camilo Mora at the University of Hawaii at M noa, published today in Nature.

The report begins with the recognition that the annual mean global air temperature fluctuates from year to year, even though it has been climbing overall since the industrial revolution began. If the world does nothing new, then the temperature by 2047 will exceed even the highest annual temperature from 1860 to 2005. If the world aggressively cuts back on emissions, then the date at which the temperature fully departs from modern history will be delayed until 2069. Mora and his colleagues crunched data from 39 different climate models that feed two future scenarios: business as usual (leading to the 2049 date) and aggressive mitigation (the 2069 date). The same two scenarios are cornerstones of the new climate assessment released two weeks ago by the International Panel on Climate Change.[scientificamerican]

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40524 Oct 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like a bonus for the Stupid Party!
Not only do they damage the US economy so they can blame that on Obama in the future, and pointlessly fight a law that is in effect and has been found to be Constitutional, but they get to disrupt climate research and cause the loss of a year's worth of data.
They must be proud!
So proud in fact, Fox decides it's the Obama shutdown, not those hero tea baggers they don't want to own the denial of a soldiers memorial visit. That has to be Obama's fault and the reason the world went broke was "Health care" not the Bush lead GFC. I mean it was so obvious, any tea bagger could see it, health care sent the world broke. But when you look around every corner of the globe 5yrs on and you know what ? NO ONE has dropped it. Why ??? Because they believe health care it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!

So to all those Billions of people out there around the globe living deluded lives who just can't see what those tea baggers see. I think Cruz & co along with Bonehead should be nominated for the next Nobel prize for Economics and Medicine. They may just as well given the world another economic hit in the nuts while still being on their knees and stopped any chance of doing anything constructive about global warming. History will remember them well, I'm sure.
SpaceBlues

United States

#40526 Oct 9, 2013
Evidence from recent years suggests that some tropical species, which are used to only limited climate variation, will be more sensitive to rapid changes in climate than species in areas that experience a wide array of conditions[2].

But it is not clear which species will be hardest hit, says Sean McMahon, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland.“This paper very clearly shifts the discussion from ‘if’ the climate will have an impact to ‘when’ it will have an impact — and serves as a call for scientists to use regional climate projections to predict specific impacts on biodiversity,” he says.

Williams agrees.“This study will help identify the emergence of novel climates — but to determine species’ ability to survive climate change, it will be important to look deeper back in time to determine species' responses to past ice ages,” abrupt warming and other extreme climate shifts, he says.

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) 9 min Cheech the Conser... 1,524,325
My heart is open for a real man~ 2 hr SpreadUrThighs 11
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 240,433
Spoil your lighter piglets rotten some more God!!! 4 hr test 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr RACE 105,143
Slop em some more God!!! 9 hr doG mnDaed lyoH r... 1
A few ITEMS of interest. 14 hr JOCULARITY JOCULA... 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages