• Sections
Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 64549 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: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42576 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
The BIG question is what causes the wobbles and that is what should be argued about.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#42577 Jan 8, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the hell are you getting your info?
Now that all components of the payback equation are defined, the payback period can be calculated.
Residential payback period:
\$15,000/(\$600 –\$100)=\$15,000/\$500 = 30 years
Commercial payback period:
\$100,000/(\$6,000 –\$1,000)=\$100,000/\$5,000 – 20 years
- See more at: http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/wind-energy-m...
Look at that... Iowa...
Quit posting lies.
Where can one find kWh's for 6 cents? My kWh's cost \$0.1162 each. So, the payback period for me if I had that system with that generation would be 14 years, and even less if my rates keep going up like they have.

It's getting more affordable every day.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#42578 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, the jet stream instead of whipping around in a circular fashion with the Arctic winds got the wobbles and came south. The BIG question is what causes the wobbles and that is what should be argued about. These denier idiots on here dismiss everything, they take no notice of NASA, No notice of any weather organisation, No notice of any climate science in Europe, China, Russia in fact every corner of the globe. Coming up with their own wild theories that we are supposed to make sense of excluding all of the above. Mind you, these would be
the same people that get abducted by Aliens.
I am beginning to accept Dr. Francis's work as very likely the answer to the extreme weather phenomenon. It seems very logical.

It makes me wonder if, sometime in the not-too-distant future, we see the complete dissolution of the jet stream as we know it as the ice disappears from the north sea.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

#42581 Jan 9, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me see: the Arctic was colder in the 70s so the jet stream was stronger, but the Arctic is much warmer now so the jet stream is weaker and more wobbly, and has dropped down over the US, and this somehow contradicts global warming?
Obviously you don't understand physics. Not surprising since most liberal artists only understand feelings and not science.

As temperature increases > pressure increases.
As temperature decreases > pressure decreases.

Translation = a decrease in pressure means a decrease in wind pressure and vice versa.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 13

#42582 Jan 9, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously you don't understand physics. Not surprising since most liberal artists only understand feelings and not science.
As temperature increases > pressure increases.
As temperature decreases > pressure decreases.
Translation = a decrease in pressure means a decrease in wind pressure and vice versa.
Atmospheric pressure-patterns in the Northern Hemisphere feature several semipermanent features and patterns. By semipermanent I mean that areas of high and low pressure are normally to be found in certain places or that pressure-patterns tend to switch from one type to another and then back. The low pressure of the Intertropical Convergence Zone is a good example of a semipermanent feature - it is normally close to the Equator but it is not always in the same place: it can shift a little north or south in its position. A good example of a switching pressure-pattern occurs in the Arctic and is known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO). When atmospheric pressure over the Arctic is low and pressure over the mid-latitudes is high, the AO is said to be in its positive phase, which supports a tight and fast-moving zonal, west-to-east airflow - the Polar Vortex

With high pressure we see the flow becomes more meridional, with big meanders occurring in the longwave ridges and troughs, which then tend to move eastwards much more slowly. Rossby Wave theory predicts this but there is a simple analogy: think of a river's flow weakening as it leaves the mountains and enters the lowlands, where it becomes sluggish and meanders develop and propagate seawards along the flood plain over many decades. A negative Arctic Oscillation pattern with these high-amplitude longwaves has the effect of permitting warm air to penetrate much further north (in the ridges) and cold air to plunge much further south (in the troughs), something that is obviously of relevance in the resultant weather-conditions.

In the Dipole pattern, high pressure sits over the Canadian side of the Arctic and low pressure sits over the opposite, Siberian, side. This setup has some similarity to a negative Arctic Oscillation phase in that the strong west-east zonal flow is not supported but, more importantly, two things are facilitated: cold air is churned out on the North Atlantic side of the system and may flood southwards for great distances but conversely warm air is pulled into the Arctic on the Pacific side. The Dipole pattern is thus a major heat-exchanger between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. Wave theory tells us that the west-east progression of the Rossby waves is influenced by their size: larger waves move more slowly. Negative NAO/AO setups promote such meridionality and, according to recent research, that meridionality seems to be on the increase. A possible cause of this effect is the warming of the Arctic which has become so profound (twice that of the rest of the world) that it has been given a term: Arctic Amplification. Arctic Amplification manifests itself not only in the temperature record but also in physical features like the strong and in 2012 record-shattering seasonal melting of Arctic sea ice, a process which itself leads to more accumulation of heat energy as the ice-free sea-water absorbs incoming solar radiation that would have otherwise been mostly reflected back out into space.

The Above sufficiently describes the reaction of the Rossby waves within the jet stream and further describes the reaction of the changing conditions in the Arctic effecting weather patterns associated with those changes.

Judged:

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42583 Jan 9, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously you don't understand physics. Not surprising since most liberal artists only understand feelings and not science.
As temperature increases > pressure increases.
As temperature decreases > pressure decreases.
Translation = a decrease in pressure means a decrease in wind pressure and vice versa.
It's the temperature difference between the Arctic and middle latitudes that drives wind speed, and that difference has grown smaller in the last few decades as the Arctic has warmed.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#42585 Jan 9, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously you don't understand physics. Not surprising since most liberal artists only understand feelings and not science.
As temperature increases > pressure increases.
As temperature decreases > pressure decreases.
Translation = a decrease in pressure means a decrease in wind pressure and vice versa.
I don't know if your backyard in Virginia is the same way, but in my part of the country, low pressure brings warm, wet weather like thunderstorms and tornadoes while high pressure systems bring cool, clear conditions.

You have probably over-simplified something you half-understand. Or made a sweeping generalization that is inaccurate in its breadth.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

#42586 Jan 9, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the temperature difference between the Arctic and middle latitudes that drives wind speed, and that difference has grown smaller in the last few decades as the Arctic has warmed.
Best read what the post before you wrote. That's if you can comprehend it.
Meanwhile...hahahahahaha... to your "that difference has grown smaller in the last few decades as the Arctic has warmed" comment.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

#42587 Jan 9, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if your backyard in Virginia is the same way, but in my part of the country, low pressure brings warm, wet weather like thunderstorms and tornadoes while high pressure systems bring cool, clear conditions.
You have probably over-simplified something you half-understand. Or made a sweeping generalization that is inaccurate in its breadth.
Are you really debating over the laws of physics? I hope not. Post #42582 explained the occurences.
In case you don't understand I'll explain why you get your weather.
"but in my part of the country, low pressure brings warm, wet weather like thunderstorms and tornadoes"-this is because it also contains low temperatures and thus suck or pull the areas of high temperature (where high pressures exist) and these pressure convergences creat unsettled weather when the differences are extreme. Cool air sinks as it is more dense and hot air goes over the top of it and forms a vortex that uprights itself creating your tornados.
Likewise: "while high pressure systems bring cool, clear conditions." High pressures will bring clear conditions due to pushing its pressure outward dispelling cloud cover. Your comment about cool may be erroneaous unless you are talking season temps that are par for the time of year at the time an area high occurs.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42588 Jan 9, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Best read what the post before you wrote. That's if you can comprehend it.
Meanwhile...hahahahahaha... to your "that difference has grown smaller in the last few decades as the Arctic has warmed" comment.
bligh wrote:
A good example of a switching pressure-pattern occurs in the Arctic and is known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO). When atmospheric pressure over the Arctic is low and pressure over the mid-latitudes is high, the AO is said to be in its positive phase, which supports a tight and fast-moving zonal, west-to-east airflow - the Polar Vortex
With high pressure we see the flow becomes more meridional, with big meanders occurring in the longwave ridges and troughs, which then tend to move eastwards much more slowly.
And what leads to higher pressure?
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
As temperature increases > pressure increases.
bligh wrote:
Negative NAO/AO setups promote such meridionality and, according to recent research, that meridionality seems to be on the increase. A possible cause of this effect is the warming of the Arctic which has become so profound (twice that of the rest of the world) that it has been given a term: Arctic Amplification. Arctic Amplification manifests itself not only in the temperature record but also in physical features like the strong and in 2012 record-shattering seasonal melting of Arctic sea ice, a process which itself leads to more accumulation of heat energy as the ice-free sea-water absorbs incoming solar radiation that would have otherwise been mostly reflected back out into space.
The Above sufficiently describes the reaction of the Rossby waves within the jet stream and further describes the reaction of the changing conditions in the Arctic effecting weather patterns associated with those changes.
I don't see anything in bligh's post that contradicts mine: he also seems to be saying that a warming Arctic has lead to a weaker vortex and bigger wobbles, but as he seems to have a far more detailed understanding than mine, perhaps I should let him answer that?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
The Stinker
#42589 Jan 9, 2014
I hope you New Yorkers are haing a good time shoveling snow and freezing. I guess all this global warming is working out pretty good for you all. Try not to freeze to death while looking for the answers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#42590 Jan 9, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really debating over the laws of physics? I hope not. Post #42582 explained the occurences.
In case you don't understand I'll explain why you get your weather.
"but in my part of the country, low pressure brings warm, wet weather like thunderstorms and tornadoes"-this is because it also contains low temperatures and thus suck or pull the areas of high temperature (where high pressures exist) and these pressure convergences creat unsettled weather when the differences are extreme. Cool air sinks as it is more dense and hot air goes over the top of it and forms a vortex that uprights itself creating your tornados.
Likewise: "while high pressure systems bring cool, clear conditions." High pressures will bring clear conditions due to pushing its pressure outward dispelling cloud cover. Your comment about cool may be erroneaous unless you are talking season temps that are par for the time of year at the time an area high occurs.
Nope, not debating any laws of physics. Just telling you what happens in my neighborhood.

But your high temps=high pressure and low temps=low pressure is not always true.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42591 Jan 9, 2014
The Stinker wrote:
I hope you New Yorkers are haing a good time shoveling snow and freezing. I guess all this global warming is working out pretty good for you all. Try not to freeze to death while looking for the answers.
Yep they are ticked off at the likes of you for ignoring all the warnings this would happen in the first place. Doesn't matter if you freeze to death or cook to death or drown, climate change is what it is CLIMATE CHANGE brought on by global warming and made by man. All of which you ignore!

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

#42592 Jan 10, 2014
It's all do to sun spot activity...or lack thereof...
Manmade activity are ants at the picnic.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#42593 Jan 10, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
It's all do to sun spot activity...or lack thereof...
Manmade activity are ants at the picnic.
It's not due to sunspot activity...or lack thereof.
Manmade activity isn't like ants at a picnic, not when we emit 9.7 billion metric tons of CO2 a year.

There. Fixed it for you.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra
#42594 Jan 10, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
... not when we emit 9.7 billion metric tons of CO2 a year.

Don't you hate it when folks just toss out really big numbers without any context to make an argument?

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

#42595 Jan 10, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not due to sunspot activity...or lack thereof.
Manmade activity isn't like ants at a picnic, not when we emit 9.7 billion metric tons of CO2 a year.
There. Fixed it for you.
And yet, NASA can't seem to see it with their birds in the air?
Bird is the vernacular for satellites for you liberal artists and grant seekers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 13

#42596 Jan 10, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And what leads to higher pressure?
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I don't see anything in bligh's post that contradicts mine: he also seems to be saying that a warming Arctic has lead to a weaker vortex and bigger wobbles, but as he seems to have a far more detailed understanding than mine, perhaps I should let him answer that?
hey...Your explanation was close enough and that's exactly whats going on. Thanks You for being aware.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42597 Jan 10, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, NASA can't seem to see it with their birds in the air?
Bird is the vernacular for satellites for you liberal artists and grant seekers.
No all they see is the ice shrinkage at both poles and all those super storm formations. They throw out the warnings but with deniers "If we can't see it, then can't hurt us." Kinda like chemical warfare after you have sucked in a few big ones, then its a bit late to break out the gas mask. It would just be some much cheaper to reign in emissions than deal with this crap.
gcaveman1
#42598 Jan 10, 2014
Lindzen, Hanson, Mann; none of them matter to the real science and the real situation. All denier arguments are pointless and irrelevant. There IS NO DEBATE as to whether AGW is happening or as to whether or not Man is causing it. The only legitimate arguments that TRUE SKEPTICS can make is how much and how bad it will be.

Reference the following story about Charleston, SC as a microcosm of the world situation in the American context.

Some people just flat-out deny the reality. Some are trying to protect their interests and continue to profit for as long as possible. Some know it is happening and want and need to do something about it. Some are actually making plans. Everyone considers AGW and SLR to be dirty words, for their own reasons.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-front-...

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min RiccardoFire 1,730,596
Why does America tolerate nazis? 16 min Epistermophobia L... 18
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 54 min honeymylove 12,105
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr Nannabella 1,035
Johnny brandenburg 1 hr Wanting answers 1
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr Nannabella 6,937
Trump is A 3 hr Rose of Tralee 542