Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63591 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.

MONIKA

Ashburn, VA

#41219 Nov 10, 2013
Hi friends +919173104831
litesong

Everett, WA

#41221 Nov 10, 2013
B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....your opinion .....your opinion ......your inflated OPINION..... your opinion ......your opinion .......your opinions......
With a one-dimensional confrontation, all you attack is an individual. However, you attack AGW, not at all.

AGW infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change CO2 potential to become 1000 ppm is greater because of toxic AGW deniers. Of course, AGW is NOT only CO2. But added to CO2 is excess methane that is caused by feedback loops, PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs PLUS excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.

None of the facts above did you ever attack, because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

You reduce everything to opinion. Of course, AGW is NOT opinion, & you argue into a vacuum...... a vacuum that is your non-education.

I am glad you don't understand the above AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.
Scientist Emeritus Fellow

Fullerton, CA

#41222 Nov 10, 2013
The Philippine typhoon was definitely global warming caused. I just finished the computer analysis of the data. I was up all night. There is no doubt. Check out my published results.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#41223 Nov 10, 2013
B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....your opinion .....your opinion ......your inflated OPINION..... your opinion ......your opinion .......your opinions......
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
With a one-dimensional confrontation, all you attack is an individual.
You reduce everything to opinion. Of course, AGW is NOT opinion, & you argue into a vacuum...... a vacuum that is your non-education.
Yes, that is ax acutely the point I was making. Thanks for taking the time and effort to understand.
My post was about the facts that you deny. Facts that every science academy in the world accept.

And yes! The ONLY challenges offered in rebuttal are your opinions.

Again yes. Your opinionated responses do operate in a vacuum of (apparent) deliberate ignorance.

Once again I offer THE SAME fact so that you may reconsider your previous response:

Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.

Post Script:
If you still insist on claiming the math is incorrect please show YOUR math in support of that opinion, thx.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#41224 Nov 10, 2013
"ax acutely" = is exactly
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#41225 Nov 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Elitist?
Yes it is.
Science is inherently about an elite. Very few people have the intelligence, focus and clarity to do good research science. They are therefore an 'elite'. The masses are not blocked from doing the same but generally don't have the ability.

But they probably have some skill that THEY do well, so in their careers they would also be an 'elite'. They should just leave science to those who ARE elite scientists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#41226 Nov 10, 2013
Scientist Emeritus Fellow wrote:
The Philippine typhoon was definitely global warming caused.
It was CAUSED by local weather conditions. AGW may have a role in increasing intensity which is the role that it is expected to have from increasing ocean temperatures. I do not believe you are a scientist or at least currently published. Scientists speak in precision English and make distinctions.
Scientist Emeritus Fellow wrote:
I just finished the computer analysis of the data. I was up all night. There is no doubt. Check out my published results.
"there is no doubt' is not a statement a scientist would make. Yhey say 'very likely', maybe 'extremely likely' but NEVER claim that there is no doubt at all.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#41227 Nov 10, 2013
Frankly Mr. litesong, I suspect you lack the ability to respond coherently to the facts
and request I posted but would be quite pleased if you proved me wrong.

May your faith in science spare you from the anguish of your fears about CAGW.
Sincerely BS
litesong

Everett, WA

#41228 Nov 10, 2013
B as in B as as in S wrote:
..... that is ax acutely the point I was making. Thanks for taking the time and effort to understand.
I understand you have no science or mathematics points to make & that........

.......you don't understand AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.

Manipulating language gets you no closer to truth, science, & mathematics & makes you a toxic topix AGW denier.
Lea

United States

#41229 Nov 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you have no science or mathematics points to make & that........
.......you don't understand AGW facts. I am not your teacher & I like toxic topix AGW deniers to be as stupid as they have chosen their poor educations to be.
Manipulating language gets you no closer to truth, science, & mathematics & makes you a toxic topix AGW denier.
....now visualizing you stomping your feet, pulling your hair and throwing things around the room, lol.
;-)

p.s. that's the difference is confidence in the facts where you base your opinions or having opinions where the FACTS simply DO NOT SUPPORT.

*hilarious!
litesong

Everett, WA

#41230 Nov 10, 2013
Lea wrote:
....now visualizing you
You can never visualize being in a science or mathematics class, or research project, understanding the material & ever incorporating its conclusions into evidences. As a toxic topix AGW denier, you love an untruthful philosophy.
Lea

United States

#41231 Nov 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You can never visualize being in a science or mathematics class, or research project, understanding the material & ever incorporating its conclusions into evidences. As a toxic topix AGW denier, you love an untruthful philosophy.
I don't deny you fail to have empirical evidence to support your position.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#41232 Nov 10, 2013
Lea wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't deny you fail to have empirical evidence to support your position.
There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads...

2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/m...

3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudg...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#at...

4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextse...

5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GC0...

6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.ht...

7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.htm...

8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation;
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudg...
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudg...

10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yr...

It quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.

-Skeptical Science
Jesse

United States

#41233 Nov 10, 2013
Look to your sources Sherlock, can get even more which debunk.

Wikipedia, lol.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#41234 Nov 10, 2013
This is what a SuperStorm looks like when it gets it's strength from us doing nothing about global warming. Imagine if that hit the US mainland & the deniers will keep telling us these are natural events that one would hope never to see in their lifetime only it is now almost an annual event somewhere in the world. For all those tea baggers who always thought the nuke is a solve all problems solution. Only with Mother Nature it doesn't stand a chance, yet we give her the finger daily!

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/phil...

http://warincontext.org/2013/11/10/super-typh...

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Jose

Fullerton, CA

#41235 Nov 11, 2013
Scientist Emeritus Fellow wrote:
The Philippine typhoon was definitely global warming caused. I just finished the computer analysis of the data. I was up all night. There is no doubt. Check out my published results.
Good to know. I suspected as much. But I'm not a scientist.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#41236 Nov 11, 2013
Jose wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to know. I suspected as much. But I'm not a scientist.
I wonder at what point do deniers stop mocking and start to take notice. Last year Europe was under water, Sandy, Katrina, out of control wild fires etc etc and this has only been in the part 10 yrs or so. Not in the last 500 yrs, so at which point do you start to think something is amiss. Given that this last super storm was the strongest in the world's history. 10,000 ppl dead and the count will keep rising.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/n...

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#41237 Nov 11, 2013
You warmist fools can't seem to help yourselves!
Lol
EVERYTIME a big weather event occurs you all jump on the bandwagon shouting "see..see what man made co2 is doing to our planet"?
Lol
Anyone find proof of your claims?!?! Oh, wait, politically driven motivations need no scientific evidence!
Lol
Professor Emeritus Fellow

Corona Del Mar, CA

#41238 Nov 11, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder at what point do deniers stop mocking and start to take notice. Last year Europe was under water, Sandy, Katrina, out of control wild fires etc etc and this has only been in the part 10 yrs or so. Not in the last 500 yrs, so at which point do you start to think something is amiss. Given that this last super storm was the strongest in the world's history. 10,000 ppl dead and the count will keep rising.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/n...
You need only to take a close look at the peer reviewed data by reputable scientists in our field.

With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.
While the season does not end until late November, time is running out for the season, much to the relief of those living in coastal areas.

Atlantic Seasons With Two or Fewer Hurricanes
(1851-Present)
Year
Number of Hurricanes
1914
0
1907
0
1905
1
1890
2
1895
2
1917
2
1919
2
1925
2
1930
2
1982
2
2013
2

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#41239 Nov 11, 2013
Professor Emeritus Fellow wrote:
<quoted text>
You need only to take a close look at the peer reviewed data by reputable scientists in our field.
With only two hurricanes so far, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is well behind the curve to reach the average number of hurricanes and is one of the least intense since 1950.
While the season does not end until late November, time is running out for the season, much to the relief of those living in coastal areas.
Atlantic Seasons With Two or Fewer Hurricanes
(1851-Present)
Year
Number of Hurricanes
......
1925
2
1930
2
1982
2
2013
2
Yeah, you are correct the dice didn't roll your way this year. So I guess you will be happy to accept 4-5 million refugees coming from the Philippines because they weren't so lucky. That is the other big threat from climate change in the future, climate refugees!

http://science.time.com/2013/09/09/a-silent-h...

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) 8 min sonicfilter 1,510,314
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 28 min Consensus is a pa... 8,081
Give liberals a stroke! Fight for coal powered... 1 hr Trump is the man 1
News Sessions: DOJ will crack down on federal grants... 1 hr Trump is the man 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr CrunchyBacon 105,074
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr NotSoDivineMsM 239,644
Southern Ill will vote to expell Chicago From S... (Sep '15) 3 hr Peoria 5

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages