Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60008 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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46174 Apr 23, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year, an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012‘s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia‘s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back. Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century, a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has 'paused‘ since the beginning of 1997, an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict. In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the
models forecast with '90 per cent certainty‘.
The pause which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research center is important because the model's predictions of ever increasing global temperatures have made many of the world‘s economies divert billions of pounds into 'green‘ measures to counter climate change. Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
THERE WON'T BE ANY ICE AT ALL! HOW THE BBC PREDICTED CHAOS IN 2007
Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a 'conservative‘ forecast. Perhaps it was their
confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst. Shipping experts said the only way these vessels were likely to be freed was by the icebreakers of the Canadian coastguard. According to the official Canadian government website, the Northwest Passage has remained ice-bound and impassable all summer. The BBC‘s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-
computer models and the fact that "we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice". He was confident his results were 'much more realistic‘ than other projections, which 'underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice‘.
Another who does not understand the difference between weather and climate.
hands on AR

Zion, IL

#46175 Apr 23, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly is the point of these repeats? You must be a prolific tweeter, or twit, if you prefer.
For some reason when I read his posts I hear a robot voice in my head! Is it just me?
Drifting to sleep

Fairfield, CA

#46176 Apr 23, 2014
Global warming is a hoax and a scam. The people bitching the most about global warming are the same ones that charter private jets all over the world. They should lead by example and refuse to use any fossil fuels or just shut their mouths.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46177 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you understood science you would know that science is never settled...
The debate isn't over?
litesong

Everett, WA

#46178 Apr 23, 2014
mudbuilder wrote:
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year, an increase of 60 per cent... days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia‘s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year...... the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century....... temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with '90 per cent certainty‘.....
Let's see if "mudbuilder" is correct about its "global cooling", sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liar scenario. In truth, sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars have been predicting an ice age for 10+ years.

Maximum Arctic sea ice extent were very similar for..... both 2013 AND 2014. Present Arctic sea ice extent is very similar for........both 2013 & 2014.

The average temperature over millions of square kilometers above the 80th parallel has just ended, being over normal for 140 DAYS. Not one day was normal or below average. Presently average temperature above the 80th parallel is -16degC, a bit higher than normal.

Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of April 1, 2014 is 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for April 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~30,200 cubic kilometers. Present April 1, 2014 sea ice VOLUME is ~22,700 cubic kilometers,~7500 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for April 1.
Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46179 Apr 23, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The debate isn't over?
It is over until/unless someone is able disprove the hypothesis. No one has done it yet. The effects of tobacco on the human body are largely settled science. Does the fact that there are some obscure studies in variance to the accepted science reason enough to disregard the findings and promote cigarette smoking for economic reasons?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46180 Apr 23, 2014
hands on AR wrote:
<quoted text>
For some reason when I read his posts I hear a robot voice in my head! Is it just me?
Yeah, he's from Everett. Probably cranked to the max.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46181 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is over until/unless someone is able disprove the hypothesis.

[specious argument omitted]
So now it's a "hypothesis"? Or is a theory? Or maybe "proven science"? Or "settled"?

Sheesh... keep up with your own assertions. You're already barely a tolerable writer as it is.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46182 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is over until/unless someone is able disprove the hypothesis. No one has done it yet. The effects of tobacco on the human body are largely settled science. Does the fact that there are some obscure studies in variance to the accepted science reason enough to disregard the findings and promote cigarette smoking for economic reasons?
First, you have to prove your premise. EVERY prediction has failed miserably. And when you're called on it you respond with the ever popular, and utterly pointless, "Another who does not understand the difference between weather and climate."
What has been proven, though, is that if you find the right crowd and make them feel important, they'll follow you around like a trained monkey.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46184 Apr 23, 2014
litesong wrote:
Let's see if "mudbuilder" is correct about its "global cooling", sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liar scenario. In truth, sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars have been predicting an ice age for 10+ years.
Maximum Arctic sea ice extent were very similar for..... both 2013 AND 2014. Present Arctic sea ice extent is very similar for........both 2013 & 2014.
The average temperature over millions of square kilometers above the 80th parallel has just ended, being over normal for 140 DAYS. Not one day was normal or below average. Presently average temperature above the 80th parallel is -16degC, a bit higher than normal.
Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of April 1, 2014 is 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for April 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~30,200 cubic kilometers. Present April 1, 2014 sea ice VOLUME is ~22,700 cubic kilometers,~7500 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for April 1.
Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.
Sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars gave my information negative icons. Time to repeat & add details to my post:

Maximum Arctic sea ice extents were very similar for..... both 2013 AND 2014. Present Arctic sea ice extents is very similar for........both 2013 & 2014.
The average temperature over millions of square kilometers above the 80th parallel has just ended, being over normal for 140 DAYS. Not one day was normal or below average. However, above normal temperatures over those millions of square kilometers have been has high as 16degC(29degF) over temperature. Presently average temperature above the 80th parallel is -16degC, a bit higher than normal.
Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of April 1, 2014 is 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for April 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~30,200 cubic kilometers. Present April 1, 2014 sea ice VOLUME is ~22,700 cubic kilometers,~7500 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for April 1.
Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46185 Apr 23, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
...gave my information negative icons. Time to repeat & add details to my post
Now that is funny. Such a sensitive nut you are.

As if adding more shyt to the pile will make it stink less.

LOL
litesong

Everett, WA

#46186 Apr 23, 2014
mudbuilder wrote:
he's from Everett.
I love eastern Oregon. Love it just a trace less, now.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46187 Apr 23, 2014
motheaten wrote:
....adding more shyt to the pile will make it stink less.
Shyt is what sleazy, slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars, think of truth. Yeah, AGW advocates have known that fact for years. In the midst of sleazy, slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars' predictions that we have entered an ice age, time to repeat the truth & add to the truth:

Maximum Arctic sea ice extent were very similar for..... both 2013 AND 2014. Present Arctic sea ice extent is very similar for........both 2013 & 2014.
The average temperature over millions of square kilometers above the 80th parallel has just ended, being over normal for 140 DAYS. No period of time in over 50 years, has had such a long time above normal temperatures. Not one day was normal or below average. Presently average temperature above the 80th parallel is -16degC, a bit higher than normal.
Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of April 1, 2014 is 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for April 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~30,200 cubic kilometers. Present April 1, 2014 sea ice VOLUME is ~22,700 cubic kilometers,~7500 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for April 1.
Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46188 Apr 23, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you have to prove your premise. EVERY prediction has failed miserably. And when you're called on it you respond with the ever popular, and utterly pointless, "Another who does not understand the difference between weather and climate."
What has been proven, though, is that if you find the right crowd and make them feel important, they'll follow you around like a trained monkey.
Proofs are the domain of mathematics, not science. BTW, no other period since instrumental records began with both a solar minimum and La Niña has seen temperatures as high as they are now. The predictions have not failed, only your understanding.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46189 Apr 23, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So now it's a "hypothesis"? Or is a theory? Or maybe "proven science"? Or "settled"?
Sheesh... keep up with your own assertions. You're already barely a tolerable writer as it is.
Here are hypotheses:
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide - tested
Carbon Dioxide passes almost all of the radiation from the Sun and traps IR radiation emitted from the Earth- tested
Trapped heat radiation increases temperature - tested
The temperature of the Earth is rising- tested
Increasing temperature causes water to expand and ice to melt - tested
Melting ice and expanding water increase volume/water levels - tested.

These are the basis of the Theory of AGW. The theory will remain intact unless or until the hypotheses are disproved. So far that has not been done.

If you had an understanding of science, you would know that theories are based upon hypotheses. To be a hypothesis, or theory for that matter, they must be disprovable. Since all the hypotheses are disprovable and none of them have been disproved, the theory remains intact.

For once answer the question. What evidence can you present that negates the hypotheses supporting AGW?

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46190 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Proofs are the domain of mathematics, not science. BTW, no other period since instrumental records began with both a solar minimum and La Niña has seen temperatures as high as they are now. The predictions have not failed, only your understanding.
Even 10,000 years of data wouldn't be representative of anything except the unpredictability of our planet's life cycle. Any attempt to forecast what that cycle will be is, in itself, incredibly absurd. But in presuming to have the capability to manipulate it, that is tantamount to claiming credit for creating the planet.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46191 Apr 23, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I love eastern Oregon. Love it just a trace less, now.
It's spoken for. But you're welcomed to pass through. Any time.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46192 Apr 23, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Shyt is what .
... you post.

Run along. Take your meds.
DDDD-25

Corona, CA

#46193 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the argument of the scientific illiterate. Scientific theories are not proven. Mathematicians provide proofs. Scientists simply find the best explanations from observations and logical applications. For example, prove that the theory that the universe is trending towards maximum entropy or prove the General Theory of Relativity.. They cannot be proven, but so far observations and application support the theories. Most scientific illiterates believe in absolutes but science deals in observation, experimental manipulation and logical application.
Even Einstein's theory of a static universe was shattered when Hubble discovered red shift in the spectra of objects in the universe. The current theory is that of the "Big Bang" but even that is under stress. Nope, scientific theories are not proven. They are simply accepted as the best explanation unless something comes along that disproves them. No one has disproved the theory of AGW as of this time.


No one has disproved the agw theory, and more importantly, NO ONE HAS PROVED IT, EITHER. As for Einstein, Observation proved his math was correct. Half a trillion AGW rocket scientists have failed to do the same with their theory of AGW. With the equipment available to him at the time of his static universe theory, and the data available, the static theory was reasonable, and there was no controversy. Given the choice between who to believe in, I'll take Einstein over the entire world wide pool of AGW "scientists". You know, the ones already exposed as frauds?. Do I mean you? Well, yeah....Einstein smarter than the whole lot of you wanna-be scientists combined.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46194 Apr 23, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Even 10,000 years of data wouldn't be representative of anything except the unpredictability of our planet's life cycle. Any attempt to forecast what that cycle will be is, in itself, incredibly absurd. But in presuming to have the capability to manipulate it, that is tantamount to claiming credit for creating the planet.
Your only argument is because the climate changed in the past, man cannot do anything to change it today. That is a null argument. It cannot be predicted with certainty what will happen in the future because there are so many variables( volcanoes, asteroids, nuclear war, collapse of society, galactic clouds, etc.). However, the theory of AGW predicts with 95% certainty that if the variables remain the same except for the introduction of increasing CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will warm.

I am not sure of your reasoning that this is tantamount to creating the Earth. Explain.

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 BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Rogue Scholar 05 216,428
Observations 7 min A Noted Observer 126
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min woodtick57 1,394,400
last post wins! (Apr '13) 24 min Retired SOF 1,100
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 29 min GEORGIA 2,677
Word (Dec '08) 31 min GEORGIA 6,398
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ize Found 70,697
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr AngryLeak 102,441
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages