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

Full story: Newsday 47,501
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34512 Mar 2, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Science only agrees climate change is real, but not a real crisis. Deny that!
Show us one single IPCC warning of climate crisis that says it "WILL" happen or is "imminent", not just "might be" and "could be" a climate crisis. If it were a crisis they would have said so by now after 27 years of research so how close to unstoppable warming will science take us before they confirm it will actually be a coming climate crisis, not just maybe a crisis. Help my planet could be on fire maybe?
Science says comet hits are imminent but not climate change. Science didn't lie YOU fear mongering believers did. So the only thing you believers have to worry about is your grandkids asking why grandpa bullied the kids with CO2 death threats.
YOU are part of a Reefer Madness. Nice job girls.
Memorize these definitions:

Climate variability

Climate variability refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as standard deviations, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of
the climate at all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events.

Variability may be due to natural internal processes within the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability). See also Climate change.

Climate change

A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.1 See also Climate variability and Detection and attribution.

Detection and attribution

Climate varies continually on all time scales. Detection of climate change is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#34514 Mar 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You've mentioned the reasons Norfolk floods more...... except one, AGW. Just like a good little toxic topix AGW denier.
Sheep dip!!! It's funny there is no increased flooding in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, or Suffolk! Nor is there any increased flooding in Newport News or Hampton. All on the same waterways. You people are nuts! If anything the land is rising as it rebounds from the meteorite strike that formed the Chesapeake Bay just off Cape Charles. Learn something before you spout your nonsense.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#34516 Mar 2, 2013
Science didn’t lie, YOU did!
Only you remaining fear mongers of climate blame belief and you lazy copy and paste news editors and you pandering politicians are saying it WILL be a crisis. Science only says it "could be" a crisis and has NEVER said it is imminent, only “likely”.
Science didn't commit the climate change hoax, YOU did Doomer!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#34517 Mar 3, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Sheep dip!!! It's funny there is no increased flooding in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, or Suffolk! Nor is there any increased flooding in Newport News or Hampton. All on the same waterways. You people are nuts! If anything the land is rising as it rebounds from the meteorite strike that formed the Chesapeake Bay just off Cape Charles. Learn something before you spout your nonsense.
You need to go tell all those folks they're wrong.

Show them your tide gauges and calculations before they waste all that money on something that isn't happening. In fact, you might want to advise them on how they may adapt to the Navy docks rising from the sea while you're at it.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34518 Mar 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't much matter if the poles continue to warm. All that snow will do what snow does when the air warms. Let me explain. It melts.
But thanks for apprising us of Anthony Watts' latest spin.
Well the scientists need to make up their minds...first it was this:

As the sea ice and snow cover retreat, we’re losing bright, highly reflective surfaces, and increasing the area of darker surfaces — both land and ocean — exposed to sunlight. This increases the capacity to store heat within the Arctic system, which enables more melting — a self-reinforcing cycle.”

Now we hear that the snow cover will increase in the Arctic, but now somehow that is bad and will increase the melt. What happened to snow cover giving the Arctic a bright reflective surface? So only in the science of global warming can increased snow be a bad thing and decreased snow also be a bad thing.

So the Arctic will defy physics and all that snow will do nothing to reflect the sunlight. So it doesn't much matter what happens at the Arctic, it can only be bad it seems.

It seems the poles are defying the scientists.

From 2007:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34519 Mar 3, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Feb 27 2013 (IPS)- Killer heat waves, floods and storms are increasingly caused by climate change, new research reveals.
Scientists in Germany say they have found how greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are helping to trap the jet stream, resulting in extraordinary weather such as the 2010 Pakistan flood and the 2011 heat wave in the United States.
Human-driven climate change repeatedly disturbs the flow of atmospheric waves around the globe’s Northern hemisphere, said lead author Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany.
Giant atmospheric waves called Rossby waves are meanders in the strong, high-altitude winds known as jet streams and have a major influence on weather. These wave movements are caused by the difference in temperatures between the cold air from the Arctic and hot air from the tropics.
When the waves shift north, they suck warm air from the tropics to Europe, Russia, or the U.S., and when they swing down, they do the same thing with cold air from the Arctic, said Petoukhov.
“During several recent extreme weather events, these planetary waves almost freeze in their tracks for weeks,” he said.“So instead of bringing in cool air after having brought warm air in before, the heat just stays.”
This unnatural pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels, according to the study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, this heating of the atmosphere is wildly uneven. The Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the global temperature rise of 0.8C and that affects the Rossby waves and is slowing the jet stream.
- See more at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/killer-heat-wa...
From your article, it states this:

"This UNNATURAL pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels."

Wat do you mean this is unnatural? Is this pattern contrary to nature and has never happened before?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34520 Mar 3, 2013
kristy wrote:
It seems the poles are defying the scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Obviously reading the article as a whole was beyond you.
Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.
Pick an outlier an call it representative.

Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.

Point out how the outlier prediction was too extreme, while failing to point out that Arctic melt has exceeded by far the predictions of most models.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Stroeve_toS...

Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.

Deniers are liars.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34521 Mar 3, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From your article, it states this:
"This UNNATURAL pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels."
Wat do you mean this is unnatural? Is this pattern contrary to nature and has never happened before?
It happened before*.

*x hundreds of thousands/million/billion years ago when the Earth and all life on it was completely different and nothing human beings would find recognisable or hospitable.

Deniers are liars.

And dumb, or at least they think you're dumb.

Don't fall for it.

Read the small print.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34522 Mar 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously reading the article as a whole was beyond you.
<quoted text>
Pick an outlier an call it representative.
Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.
Point out how the outlier prediction was too extreme, while failing to point out that Arctic melt has exceeded by far the predictions of most models.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Stroeve_toS...
Devious. Disingenuous. Dishonest.
Deniers are liars.
This is good to know. Now could you please tell the devious, disingenuous, and dishonest posters (homosapienlapto and gcaveman1) to stop posting such drivel? Homosapienlapto first posted that the Arctic summer could be ice free by 2030 (post 34441) and then gcaveman1 posted this (post 34446):

The "official" estimate for when the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in September used to be 2050, then 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020. But look at the raw volume data & it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.

Was gcaveman1 being devious, disingenuous, and dishonest when he posted that this is the “official” estimate?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34523 Mar 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It happened before*.
*x hundreds of thousands/million/billion years ago when the Earth and all life on it was completely different and nothing human beings would find recognisable or hospitable.
Deniers are liars.
And dumb, or at least they think you're dumb.
Don't fall for it.
Read the small print.
Does your post make you a denier and a liar and dumb? From NOAA on the 2010 Russia heat wave:

The heat wave was due primarily to a NATURAL phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.

And then what about the US in the 1930s. Was that millions and millions years of ago?

The 1936 blocking ridge happened several times in that year & had occurred in 1934, as well. By comparison, record-breaking warmth occurred in March 1986, only to return in mid April with 88-93 setting records. Past data has shown that these blocking ridges tend to perpetuate into the year. So, if history serves us well, another period of such blocking & record heat may occur this spring &/or this summer.

Interestingly, when such an upper ridge occurs in the North Atlantic & Greenland, it causes a blocking that keeps the eastern U.S. in cold & snow. This happened during multiple years in the 1960s & especially late 1970s to early 1980s. We just didn’t have ONE SINGLE HORRIBLE WINTER in the 1960s, 1970s or early 1980s, there were consecutive horrible winters as the Greenland block set in. They bathed in unprecedented winter mildness, while we shivered, dug out & had an energy crisis.

http://blogs.wlfi.com/2012/03/20/55894/ #

So when someone posts that the blocking is an UNNATURAL pattern due to the burning of fossil fuels, I have to say they are being devious, dishonest, and a denier.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#34524 Mar 3, 2013
krusty wrote:
devious, disingenuous, and dishonest.......
krusty got some vocabulary lessons & thinks he knows more than AGW scientists.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34525 Mar 3, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is good to know. Now could you please tell the devious, disingenuous, and dishonest posters (homosapienlapto and gcaveman1) to stop posting such drivel? Homosapienlapto first posted that the Arctic summer could be ice free by 2030 (post 34441) and then gcaveman1 posted this (post 34446):
The "official" estimate for when the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in September used to be 2050, then 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020. But look at the raw volume data & it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
Was gcaveman1 being devious, disingenuous, and dishonest when he posted that this is the “official” estimate?
Their posts are accurate: the consensus has come down a lot recently, and some are predicting end of the decade.

Maslowski's prediction may not come true, but remember sea ice crashed last year- if it does again this year, he could be right.

His prediction of rapid loss was more realistic than the consensus of long term loss at the time, and of course a lot more accurate that the predictions of denier idiots made in this thread for sea ice recovery post 2007.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34526 Mar 3, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your post make you a denier and a liar and dumb? From NOAA on the 2010 Russia heat wave:
The heat wave was due primarily to a NATURAL phenomenon called an atmospheric “blocking pattern”, in which a strong high pressure system developed and remained stationary over western Russian, keeping summer storms and cool air from sweeping through the region and leading to the extreme hot and dry conditions. While the blocking pattern associated with the 2010 event was unusually intense and persistent, its major features were similar to atmospheric patterns associated with prior extreme heat wave events in the region since 1880, the researchers found.
And then what about the US in the 1930s. Was that millions and millions years of ago?
The 1936 blocking ridge happened several times in that year & had occurred in 1934, as well. By comparison, record-breaking warmth occurred in March 1986, only to return in mid April with 88-93 setting records. Past data has shown that these blocking ridges tend to perpetuate into the year. So, if history serves us well, another period of such blocking & record heat may occur this spring &/or this summer.
Interestingly, when such an upper ridge occurs in the North Atlantic & Greenland, it causes a blocking that keeps the eastern U.S. in cold & snow. This happened during multiple years in the 1960s & especially late 1970s to early 1980s. We just didn’t have ONE SINGLE HORRIBLE WINTER in the 1960s, 1970s or early 1980s, there were consecutive horrible winters as the Greenland block set in. They bathed in unprecedented winter mildness, while we shivered, dug out & had an energy crisis.
http://blogs.wlfi.com/2012/03/20/55894/ #
So when someone posts that the blocking is an UNNATURAL pattern due to the burning of fossil fuels, I have to say they are being devious, dishonest, and a denier.
Blocking is not unnatural. The increased frequency of blocking events is, and very clearly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by science.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34527 Mar 3, 2013
As Caveman's link makes clear:
This unnatural pattern is due to human heating of the climate through emissions of greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels, according to the study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/killer-heat-wa...

From the original Guardian article:
"The jet stream is clearly weaker," said Francis. That means weather systems, be it rain or dry conditions, are slow to move on and last longer. Ultimately this can result in "blocking" events, such as the conditions that produced the terrible heatwave in western Russia during the summer of 2010, she said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/se...

Yes folks, science says global warming weakens the jet stream and causes more blocking events; deniers say blocking events have happened before.

Deniers are liars.

And dumb, or think you are.

Look behind the lies and see the fallacies.
PHD

Overton, TX

#34528 Mar 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
krusty got some vocabulary lessons & thinks he knows more than AGW scientists.
There you go again poster "pinheadlitesout" has diarrhea, incontinence issues and another diaper rash.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#34529 Mar 4, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the scientists need to make up their minds...first it was this:
As the sea ice and snow cover retreat, we’re losing bright, highly reflective surfaces, and increasing the area of darker surfaces — both land and ocean — exposed to sunlight. This increases the capacity to store heat within the Arctic system, which enables more melting — a self-reinforcing cycle.”
Now we hear that the snow cover will increase in the Arctic, but now somehow that is bad and will increase the melt. What happened to snow cover giving the Arctic a bright reflective surface? So only in the science of global warming can increased snow be a bad thing and decreased snow also be a bad thing.
So the Arctic will defy physics and all that snow will do nothing to reflect the sunlight. So it doesn't much matter what happens at the Arctic, it can only be bad it seems.
It seems the poles are defying the scientists.
From 2007:
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
Olympian nit-picking and straw-grabbing. But, there's no OFFICIAL competition for those.

"Now we hear..." does not tell us who you heard it from. But assuming your source is right and isn't Anthony Watts, did you think about it at all?

Snow is not as durable as ice, especially if you are talking about 2 feet of snow compared to six feet of ice. With warming temperatures in the Arctic, which will last longer? Your failure to analyze shows a lack of logical thinking ability.

You have no tools to effectively debate what is happening. Fair Game has answered you for all of us.

You're devious. You're dishonest. Are you dumb as well?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34531 Mar 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Their posts are accurate: the consensus has come down a lot recently, and some are predicting end of the decade.
Maslowski's prediction may not come true, but remember sea ice crashed last year- if it does again this year, he could be right.
His prediction of rapid loss was more realistic than the consensus of long term loss at the time, and of course a lot more accurate that the predictions of denier idiots made in this thread for sea ice recovery post 2007.
Geesh, make up your mind. In an earlier post, you claimed I was dishonest and devious for posting the year 2013 as the year when scientists claim the Arctic would be ice free. You claimed that was an outlier and that the consensus of the scientists was 2040-2100 as when the Arctic summer will be ice free, but since caveman posts 2016 as the year, all of a sudden you now tell me the consensus has come down to 2019. Did you just find this out in the last 24 hours? And how I am being devious for posting something every major media outlet posted? Is the media devious and dishonest?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#34532 Mar 4, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Geesh, make up your mind. In an earlier post, you claimed I was dishonest and devious for posting the year 2013 as the year when scientists claim the Arctic would be ice free. You claimed that was an outlier and that the consensus of the scientists was 2040-2100 as when the Arctic summer will be ice free, but since caveman posts 2016 as the year, all of a sudden you now tell me the consensus has come down to 2019. Did you just find this out in the last 24 hours? And how I am being devious for posting something every major media outlet posted? Is the media devious and dishonest?
Calm down dear and think.

"Some" != consensus by any stretch of the imagination.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34533 Mar 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Olympian nit-picking and straw-grabbing. But, there's no OFFICIAL competition for those.
"Now we hear..." does not tell us who you heard it from. But assuming your source is right and isn't Anthony Watts, did you think about it at all?
Snow is not as durable as ice, especially if you are talking about 2 feet of snow compared to six feet of ice. With warming temperatures in the Arctic, which will last longer? Your failure to analyze shows a lack of logical thinking ability.
You have no tools to effectively debate what is happening. Fair Game has answered you for all of us.
You're devious. You're dishonest. Are you dumb as well?
So your logical thinking is that there is only one direction for the Arctic to go and that is ice free. You are saying that the Arctic will never recover?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#34534 Mar 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Blocking is not unnatural. The increased frequency of blocking events is, and very clearly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by science.
Yeah, clear as mud...now how is blocking very clearly linked to fossil fuels? From the your link:

"This is preliminary research that has yet to be published, and much more work needs to be done before we can confidently link Arctic sea ice loss with an increase in extreme weather, though."

From NOAA :

"In their report, the scientists concluded that the extreme temperatures were caused by the formation of a blocking pattern, a massive high-pressure ridge that halted the normal movement of cooling storms from the west and allowed warm air to flow north from the tropics. Such anomalies are relatively common and the result of natural actions, though the intensity of the one over Russia was highly unusual. Martin Hoerling, co-author of the study and head of the climate attribution team at the Earth System Research Laboratory, said that the frequency and intensity of blocking patterns is not driven primarily by heat and should not increase with the expected rise in global temperatures over the 21st century due to man-made causes."

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/nat...

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.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Life is Love 306,293
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 1,127,285
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Mandela 68,673
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Smelly twatttt hi... 19,395
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 13 hr JOEL 70,105
Popular '80s West Hartford Music Hall To Be Dem... (Jun '09) Thu AWXYZ 254
Black males often struggle to stay ahead (Jan '09) Thu AWXYZ 423
Hartford Dating
Find my Match

Hartford Jobs

Hartford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hartford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hartford

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]