Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59529 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"

#43634 Feb 17, 2014
WeatherMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, second year meteorology student in a accredited community college. Look at this about the floods in Britain:
For what it's worth, though, Mat Collins - a professor in climate systems at the University of Exeter and co-ordinating lead author to the IPCC - said at the weekend that the recent storms were not caused by climate change but by the jet stream being stuck further south than usual.
He said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."
He says "no evidence".
This is a misrepresentation of the science. Nobody is saying global warming caused the storms.
Don't believe me? Let's listen to one of the MET office scientists:
Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office's chief scientist has said.
Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms.
"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2608462...

The link with climate change is uncontroversial:
"There is an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from fundamental physics."
In short, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that four of the five wettest years and the seven warmest years on record in the UK have occurred from 2000 onwards.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/f...

It is not true to say there is no evidence to suggest climate change can cause the jet stream to get stuck. This is a current theory in climate science. Not the consensus yet, but there is evidence for it.
The main system that helps determine the weather over Northern Europe and North America may be changing, research suggests.
The study shows that the so-called jet stream has increasingly taken a longer, meandering path.
This has resulted in weather remaining the same for more prolonged periods.
The work was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

As a meteorology student, this is a theory you will need to be aware of.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43635 Feb 17, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>go right ahead and call me a troll, son!
lol
it's clearly an admission you couldn't deny my facts.
You're a troll, pops, and you wouldn't know a fact if I smacked you in the face with one.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43636 Feb 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a misrepresentation of the science. Nobody is saying global warming caused the storms.
Don't believe me? Let's listen to one of the MET office scientists:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2608462...
The link with climate change is uncontroversial:
<quoted text>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/f...
It is not true to say there is no evidence to suggest climate change can cause the jet stream to get stuck. This is a current theory in climate science. Not the consensus yet, but there is evidence for it.
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
As a meteorology student, this is a theory you will need to be aware of.
Professor Collins himself is clear that global warming made the storms worse.
Prof Collins made clear that he believes it is likely global warming could lead to higher rainfall totals, because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. But he said this has nothing to do with the storm conveyor belt.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25603...
litesong

Everett, WA

#43637 Feb 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
... you wouldn't know a fact if I smacked you in the face with one.
But "rat down the middle" & "middleofthedownwronggull y" would know a fart if you smacked him in the face with one.
litesong

Everett, WA

#43638 Feb 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
This is a misrepresentation of the science.
Fair Game......don't be redundant. Of course, touched, touchy, toxic, topix AGW deniers misrepresent science. It goes with their territory, which doesn't include science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43639 Feb 17, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>some are saying the opposite. are you a left winger? just wondering.....i see a pattern with you people.....and you could care less about science.
HA! You should talk!

I haven't seen any science from you, just bullshit gum-flapping. It's become a very identifiable pattern.

I don't even have to ask your political persuasion. All you give are the ignorant right-wing talking points.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43640 Feb 17, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a misrepresentation of the science. Nobody is saying global warming caused the storms.
Don't believe me? Let's listen to one of the MET office scientists:
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2608462...
The link with climate change is uncontroversial:
<quoted text>
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/f...
It is not true to say there is no evidence to suggest climate change can cause the jet stream to get stuck. This is a current theory in climate science. Not the consensus yet, but there is evidence for it.
<quoted text>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
As a meteorology student, this is a theory you will need to be aware of.
And when you think about it-that theory-it makes perfect sense. There is already evidence. All that is needed is more evidence to confirm it as a workable theory.

Anyone have a better explanation?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43641 Feb 17, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>but there's money in taxing co2!!! they want us to believe fossil fuels are the evil doers to climate. funny that the religious zealots don't complain about agricultural irrigation.
very telling isn't it!!
I'll tell you where this whole argument is flawed. There are 3 things that are the driving force working against our environment and our climate. First is man himself , second is Capitalism, third is Globalisation.

On the first point, man who does not give a stuff about their waste, what they consume or what it takes to meet his needs. Secondly Capitalism driven by man's desire to accumulate more takes no prisoners either. Thirdly globalisation driven by the second has made man grossly inefficient in meeting those needs. It starts with local factories closing to food producing farms all in the name of lower costs but totally ignores the energy used to get the imported product to the door. From clothing to apples. The energy consumed to grow an apple in China to be consumed in the US is about a 100 times that of one grown locally & transported to store. Pricing carbon is one way to address this major short sighted issue that goes with globalisation. If the focus shifted from energy consumed and the pollution it creates rather than the cost of the end product then that would be a quantum shift in thinking.

If that apple grown in China had to factor in it's environmental damage then it's cost might rise by 10c - 15cents. Therefore making a locally grown product competitive on price for consumers to totally ignore the imported one. That's one example of what pricing carbon worldwide can do for you!
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#43642 Feb 17, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, others disagree with him and he does not resolve the difference.
So... the science isn't settled?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#43643 Feb 17, 2014
Put up or shut up!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014...

Like, bring it on!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43644 Feb 17, 2014
On the Road: The Food Miles Question

And what about the distance food travels to get to our plates? Despite all the attention to food miles, emissions from food transport are not the biggest component of the sector’s impact on climate change.

While total emissions from transportation contribute to 13.1 percent of the global warming effect, this includes emissions from toting around all kinds of things—from people to pork chops. FTransport emissions specifically from food are just a sliver of these emissions.

Nonetheless, reducing food miles can still make a meaningful dent in our foods' emissions toll. Consider the fossil fuels wasted carting fresh tomatoes to New Jersey, a state with ample farmland that exports tons of tomatoes every year. Researchers at Rutgers University estimated that meeting the New Jersey demand for just one year’s supply of out-of-state tomatoes used up enough fossil fuel to drive an 18-wheeler around the world 249 times.

Food miles matter because so much of our food transport is unnecessary. Local food is also a better choice because it is fresher and therefore healthier for us. Buying local also supports our local economies. Purchasing local foods means supporting small-scale businesses and protecting green space in our communities.

Of course, direct trade with small-scale farmers in far away places can be a critical way to support economic development in other parts of the world. But most of the global food trade isn’t benefiting small-scale farmers — it’s benefiting the biggest grain traders at the cost of the climate. FAnd most of this global food trade is completely unnecessary, or redundant. Consider, for example, the fish caught off the coast of Maine, flash frozen, shipped to China for processing into filets, and shipped back to our mega-markets in the United States. Or, consider the business of beef. In 2007, the US exported 1.431 billion pounds of beef and veal (5.4 percent of our total beef production) Fand imported 3.052 billion pounds of the same, measured by commercial carcass weight. FThis cross-continent transport of food makes economic sense only because the true costs of such transport, including the big bill for its contribution to climate change, are not counted on the balance sheets of food corporations.

http://www.sustainabletable.org/982/agricultu...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43645 Feb 17, 2014
It’s not a secret that the Arctic Ocean is turning from white to blue as sea ice retreats. But a video compressing 25 years of satellite data into a single minute still drew gasps in a session here yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS, which publishes Science. The movie, created late last year with data from satellites and buoys, shows how each year’s sea ice cover pulses like an amoeba, expanding and contracting with the seasons—and ending almost every summer a little smaller than the year before.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/vi...

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#43648 Feb 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
It’s not a secret that the Arctic Ocean is turning from white to blue as sea ice retreats. But a video compressing 25 years of satellite data into a single minute still drew gasps in a session here yesterday at the annual meeting of AAAS, which publishes Science. The movie, created late last year with data from satellites and buoys, shows how each year’s sea ice cover pulses like an amoeba, expanding and contracting with the seasons—and ending almost every summer a little smaller than the year before.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/02/vi...
And yet the Antarctic is 25% ABOVE normal while the Arctic is a mere 5.25% below normal.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/17...
Maybe you'd be better at getting grant money if you went after a new battle: Climate Shift
LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#43649 Feb 18, 2014
Oh nooooooooooooooo. We'll all be dead due to Climate Shift!!!!
Save us Al Gore.
truth facts

Mount Orab, OH

#43650 Feb 18, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Oh nooooooooooooooo. We'll all be dead due to Climate Shift!!!!
Save us Al Gore.
No they have a new jack a$$, John Kerry out there making a complete a$$ out of himself and the warmer trolls.Com paring climate change to weapons of mass distraction oops(destruction).How do you get an agenda,you scare people.I'm surprised he didn't have a bunch of so-called scientist in white jackets behind him like when Obozo had all the doctors in white coats when he sold the fools Obozoscam.What an embarrassment this administration has become.GW is for sissies.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43651 Feb 18, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a troll, pops, and you wouldn't know a fact if I smacked you in the face with one.
try me, son. until now.....you've just spouted ridiculous opinions.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43652 Feb 18, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! You should talk!
I haven't seen any science from you, just bullshit gum-flapping. It's become a very identifiable pattern.
I don't even have to ask your political persuasion. All you give are the ignorant right-wing talking points.
is this a scientific response, son........or just another of your opinionated rants?

i heard that 'science' in mississippi asserts that southern girls have a close genetic relationship to bears because they both lick their 'paws'!

lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43653 Feb 18, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you where this whole argument is flawed. There are 3 things that are the driving force working against our environment and our climate. First is man himself , second is Capitalism, third is Globalisation.
On the first point, man who does not give a stuff about their waste, what they consume or what it takes to meet his needs. Secondly Capitalism driven by man's desire to accumulate more takes no prisoners either. Thirdly globalisation driven by the second has made man grossly inefficient in meeting those needs. It starts with local factories closing to food producing farms all in the name of lower costs but totally ignores the energy used to get the imported product to the door. From clothing to apples. The energy consumed to grow an apple in China to be consumed in the US is about a 100 times that of one grown locally & transported to store. Pricing carbon is one way to address this major short sighted issue that goes with globalisation. If the focus shifted from energy consumed and the pollution it creates rather than the cost of the end product then that would be a quantum shift in thinking.
If that apple grown in China had to factor in it's environmental damage then it's cost might rise by 10c - 15cents. Therefore making a locally grown product competitive on price for consumers to totally ignore the imported one. That's one example of what pricing carbon worldwide can do for you!
i don't want to pay more for an apple regardless of where they're grown.......and even if i did it wouldn't alter climate, now would it, son?
seems to me you just hate capitalism...... and love bigger and bigger government!!

lol

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43654 Feb 18, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
Put up or shut up!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014...
Like, bring it on!
has an experiment been conducted showing that reducing man made co2 emissions will result in less extreme weather or climate altering?

put up or shut up!!

LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43655 Feb 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>has an experiment been conducted showing that reducing man made co2 emissions will result in less extreme weather or climate altering?
put up or shut up!!
LOL
Good idea. Worth a try.:)

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 Nuculur option 1,383,677
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 40 min Dr Guru 214,535
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 45 min They cannot kill ... 8,440
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 6,173
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr They cannot kill ... 2,442
Observations 2 hr A Noted Observer 34
test 3 hr test 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr Sublime1 102,044
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages