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

There are 20 comments on the Dec 14, 2008, Newsday story 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.

Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46858 May 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
More good news for you flat earther's:
“The rate at which tropical cyclones are moving toward the poles is consistent with the observed rates of tropical expansion,” Kossin said.“The expansion of the tropics appears to be influencing the environmental factors that control tropical cyclone formation and intensification, which is apparently driving their migration toward the poles.”
According to scientists, such expansion can partly be attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases caused by human activity, ozone depletion in the stratosphere and increased pollution. However, researchers are yet to determine whether the poleward shift of a tropical cyclone's maximum intensity is also linked to human activity.
"Now that we see this clear trend, it is crucial that we understand what has caused it - so we can understand what is likely to occur in the years and decades to come," Gabriel Vecchi, a scientist at NOAA and the study’s coauthor, said in the statement.
http://www.ibtimes.com/tropical-cyclones-shif...
Yup... keep the preaching going... never mind that NO ONE IS LISTENING... NOT EVEN THE WARMISTS.

LOL
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#46859 May 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Where were you when all those manufacturing jobs in the thousands were lost when big corporate moved off shore to consolidate profits over the past 30 yrs. Only now you feel the need to defend a power company's lost revenue because of clean energy. Are you kidding us or what! If the power companies were smart they would hold clean energy companies as part of their business plan.
Yegads... you argue like the balls in a pachinko machine.

Cuckoo... cuckoo.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46860 May 15, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
No. But the cost of the units amortized over 20 years was considerably less than the expected cost of propane or electricity for the same amount of heat. Their cost is fixed. You pay it once, when you install the unit. Nobody knows what the price of propane or electricity will be over the next 20 years, but all the estimates are that the cost will rise sharply. The sun shining on those solar units is free. The more the price of gas or electric heat goes up, the more money the solar units save you. And the units are so simple that they will never wear out. The only part that you might have to replace is a simple little fan that circulates the air though them. You can retrofit them on just about any house too. All you need is a south facing roof that isn't obstructed and that has rafters strong enough to hold up the weight (a few hundred pounds for each unit).
Interesting. A "small" fan suggests either a small home or multiple units, or both. Is the heated air ducted through the attic space into the living areas? Forgive my skepticism, but your daughter's house must be at a relatively low elevation in lower latitudes with moderate average temps. I admit I didn't have any contact with solar hot air units, they just aren't used around here. There must be a reason why. Still, if it works for them, that's what counts.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46861 May 15, 2014
Blonde coed wrote:
We should all eliminate our electric bills with SOLAR!
Don't hesitate. Do it today!
BINGO..

Bravo..
Bloody Bill Anderson

Paducah, KY

#46862 May 15, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. A "small" fan suggests either a small home or multiple units, or both. Is the heated air ducted through the attic space into the living areas? Forgive my skepticism, but your daughter's house must be at a relatively low elevation in lower latitudes with moderate average temps. I admit I didn't have any contact with solar hot air units, they just aren't used around here. There must be a reason why. Still, if it works for them, that's what counts.
Yes. There are multiple units because of weight, space, and just convenience of handling. Each solar collector is 4 feet x 8 feet and about 6 inches thick. Each collector has a black glass surface and, inside, a ceramic that gets hot and dividers that make the air circulate in the same pattern that water circulates in a car radiator. It works on the same principle that causes a closed car to get hot when it is parked in the sun, even in the cold winter time. The units are arranged in a row on the south facing roof. The air is ducted down through the attic and blows out a heat register in the ceiling. The fan is inside the register, not in the unit itself. It blows air up from inside the house, through the duct, and into the unit. The air circulates through the unit and then comes down another duct. The ducts are just simple schedule 80 gray plastic pipe. The fan is really just a bathroom vent fan, only it has a thermostat inside the collector box that shuts the fan off when the sun goes down and the air in the box is no longer being heated. If you put them up while the house is being built you can run the outlet ducts down through the inside of a wall and into a main duct under the floor. That way the warm air comes out low and rises.

There is really nothing new about the principle. Farmers used it to warm pig parlors, dairy sheds, and chicken houses over a hundred years ago. Back then they arranged the collector boxes so that the air circulated through them by natural convection. Instead of the ceramic they used ordinary bricks. Some old brick chicken houses actually had a collector system built inside the brick walls in the form of hollow air spaces that air could circulate through. The sun shining on the dark red outer wall heated the bricks in the entire wall, air circulated naturally through the hollow spaces, and discharged into the building. At night the bricks retained heat and radiated it into the building to keep the chicks warm.

As for latitude, they work just fine as far north as southern Canada.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46863 May 16, 2014
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor
Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought
By BEN SPENCER
PUBLISHED: 02:10 GMT, 16 May 2014 | UPDATED: 05:33 GMT, 16 May 2014

A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.

The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46864 May 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor
Professor Lennart Bengtsson claims his study on global warming has been rejected as it might fuel climate scepticism
Says he suspects an intolerance of dissenting views on climate science
Paper suggests that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought
By BEN SPENCER
PUBLISHED: 02:10 GMT, 16 May 2014 | UPDATED: 05:33 GMT, 16 May 2014
A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
The alarming intervention, which raises fears of ‘McCarthyist’ pressure for environmental scientists to conform, came after a reviewer said the research was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.
‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.
Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
"The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.

A spokesman for IOP Publishing said:‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.

‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.

‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’ "

Just the usual denier conspiracist ideation:

"Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”"

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46865 May 16, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Yegads... you argue like the balls in a pachinko machine.
Cuckoo... cuckoo.
And you don't argue AT ALL, because you have nothing to stand on except snide remarks.
But day by day each one of you flat earther's sinks a lil deeper into the mud of ignorance.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46866 May 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't argue AT ALL, because you have nothing to stand on except snide remarks.
But day by day each one of you flat earther's sinks a lil deeper into the mud of ignorance.
Is hypocrisy part of your nature or is it an essential requirement of all liberals?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46867 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
Is hypocrisy part of your nature or is it an essential requirement of all liberals?
n summary, several attributes of the cognition underlying conspiracist ideation run counter to conventional scientific thinking. The prominence of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science should therefore not be unexpected. Knowledge of its involvement is crucial to permit scientists and communicators to respond appropriately to the rejection of evidence by segments of the public.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46868 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>n summary, several attributes of the cognition underlying conspiracist ideation run counter to conventional scientific thinking. The prominence of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science should therefore not be unexpected. Knowledge of its involvement is crucial to permit scientists and communicators to respond appropriately to the rejection of evidence by segments of the public.
You sound pretty danged smart when using someone else's words.
Science, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee infallibility. The truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Scientists have been wrong infinitely more often than right. The notion that a group of like minded academics, herded in a specific direction by fear of losing a lucrative livelihood, will arrive at unbiased conclusions, is absurd. Follow the money.
litesong

Everett, WA

#46869 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
solar hot air units, they just aren't used around here.
Yet, some areas of mid-southern & eastern Oregon have two plus times the sun of less fortunate regions of the country. Mid-southern & eastern Oregon are excellent places for solar.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46870 May 16, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, some areas of mid-southern & eastern Oregon have two plus times the sun of less fortunate regions of the country. Mid-southern & eastern Oregon are excellent places for solar.
There are areas more conducive to solar augmentation than others. But that's the problem. Solar and wind don't work everywhere, all the time. Conventional energy does. Producers in Oregon have been forced to include "green" energy sources in their power grid, at necessarily higher prices to the consumer. We had no say in the matter. We either pay the higher power bill or get shut off. I'm sure you think this is perfectly acceptable. I call it extortion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46871 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound pretty danged smart when using someone else's words.
Science, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee infallibility. The truth of the matter is quite the opposite. Scientists have been wrong infinitely more often than right. The notion that a group of like minded academics, herded in a specific direction by fear of losing a lucrative livelihood, will arrive at unbiased conclusions, is absurd. Follow the money.
You don't.

Infallibility? Infinitely? Herded by whom? Lucrative livelihood?

Don't say anything, mudbuilder

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#46872 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You don't.
Infallibility? Infinitely? Herded by whom? Lucrative livelihood?
Don't say anything, mudbuilder
Good Lord, don't you even have a dictionary?
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#46873 May 16, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"The publisher of the Environmental Research Letters journal last night said Professor Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected because it contained errors and did not sufficiently advance the science.
A spokesman for IOP Publishing said:‘The paper, co-authored by Lennart Bengtsson, was originally submitted to Environmental Research Letters as a research Letter.
‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.
‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’ "
Just the usual denier conspiracist ideation:
"Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a “hoax.”"
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...
The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote:‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
Bloody Bill Anderson

Kuttawa, KY

#46874 May 16, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are areas more conducive to solar augmentation than others. But that's the problem. Solar and wind don't work everywhere, all the time. Conventional energy does. Producers in Oregon have been forced to include "green" energy sources in their power grid, at necessarily higher prices to the consumer. We had no say in the matter. We either pay the higher power bill or get shut off. I'm sure you think this is perfectly acceptable. I call it extortion.
Your argument might be valid if Oregon had its own self-contained stand alone power system. It does not. Oregon is part of the Western Interconnection, an integrated power grid that covers the entire western United States and western Canada.

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/smart/imag...

Electric power used in Oregon is fed into that grid system from places like southern California, Arizona, and New Mexico, which are excellent locations for solar generated electricity. Power is also fed into it from excellent wind power locations on the western High Plains. Hydro-electric power from dams -- which Oregon has in abundance but the Southwest and Plains does not -- feeds "green" power into the grid at night, when the solar systems in the deserts to the south are dormant. The solar systems and hydro-electric cams in the Pacific Northwest feed power to the Plains when there is no wind to turn the windmills (which is extremely rare).
Blonde coed

Los Angeles, CA

#46875 May 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>BINGO..
Bravo..
Don't just applaud. Do it today! Call your solar company now!

You can do it! Don't be afraid. You'll save money and the earth!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#46876 May 16, 2014
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.
The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.
The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote:‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26300...
Wouldn’t rely on the Mail for anything except the latest word on celebrity bottoms if I were you.

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statemen...
Washington DC

Los Angeles, CA

#46877 May 16, 2014
Since you people started posting years ago, the climate change situation has become much much worse.

I hate to break it to you. Posting is not helping.

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) 11 min sonicfilter 1,220,909
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Cold Front 69,715
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr Guru 187,426
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Whiny1 5,919
Important! 3 hr Vote 1
Dear Abby 4-27-15 4 hr mrs gladys kravitz 10
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Michael Satterfield 99,364
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]