Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63581 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"

#39040 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said there was not a downward trend, perfectly in line with a world that has been warming. This was about predictions made by climate scientists who believed the Arctic would be ice free today.
A lie.

It was a claim made by *one* scientist.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39041 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OTTAWA (Reuters)- The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover in summer could vanish as early as 2013, decades earlier than some had predicted, a leading polar expert said on Thursday. Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which call for an ice free summer in 2013.
http://www.achangeinthewind.com/2009/03/arcti...
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. 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
Hansen and Wadhams agreed with the prediction and in fact promoted the prediction in public media, thus giving the prediction credence. Wadhams actually said this about Maslowski’s model giving the prediction even more credence:“Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.” "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice." He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting. Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years. "The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.
And in 2012, Wadhams has now claimed the Arctic will be ice free by 2015/2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/s...
So again I ask, where is Skeptical Science lecturing any of these scientists with their “regression toward the mean” theory? I’m sure they will be out in 2015 lecturing the skeptics when the media reports a response to Wadhams’ 2015 prediction. I mean how dare the skeptics hold someone accountable to their predictions.
So you are the liar, claiming there was only one scientist that predicted a 2013 ice-free Arctic and calling me a liar by stating NONE of these scientists predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2013.
Note the word *scientist*, imbecile.

Hansen and Wadhams are agreeing with a prediction for 2016, imbecile.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39042 Sep 10, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/prin...
This graph is interactive and will allow you to compare any two years.
Why not compare a whole lot of years?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/...
Mothra

United States

#39043 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you didn't read my post above, but my response to you is in that post (linked below0. More than one scientist made the prediction, and no, they weren't off the cuff. We were told these predictions were based on improved models and these predictions, we are told, were made by highly regarded scientists who specialize in ice and the poles.
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Never said we would be ice-free by 2020, just noting there is a downward trend. If you look at the past, trends change due to sun, oceans, clouds, etc. With the changes in the sun and the oceans, it will be interesting to see if we keep a downward trend.
You're doing a great job keeping on target here. Especially as each new warmist pops in, doesn't understand the context, and gives their dime store input -- which is mostly just recycling claims made earlier (which they would know if they would read back a bit).

Keep it up. They're either going to give up (and call you a bunch of names), or make an admission they don't want to make.
litesong

Snohomish, WA

#39044 Sep 10, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
Hey, gourd head!!! when will warming ever be deemed as temporary in your world???
LOL
btw....what is 'altho'??? We all know what a stickler you are for spelling! Did you finish middle school, mullet???
take a bath you 'steenking foul reprobate". you smell of used bytch.
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand, because you have no science or mathematics background. Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it:

"Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39046 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A lie.
It was a claim made by *one* scientist.
Not even a 'claim'. It was an off the cuff remark based on a discussion of 'if this goes on'. In other words, a speculation.
Mothra

United States

#39047 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are some of your posts gibbldee-gobbledee-goobildee gibberish, and others not?

Do drop the former and keep the latter.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39048 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that skepticalscience.com references the peer reviewed scientific literature, whilst the denier blogs you run to reference, well, any old garbage that seems to support their denial.
All of my links are from original sources or mainstream media.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39049 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
More cut'n paste spam from the denier blogs.
So let me get this straight. You send me to Skeptical Science. I read the article, which by the way did not address the fact that models do not match observation, then you tell me to listen to Christy who is referred to by Skeptical Science. So I do a quick google search about Christy and hot spots and find Christy's analysis of the climate models versus observation:

http://www.climatedialogue.org/

About the site:

Climate Dialogue offers a platform for discussions between (climate) scientists on important climate topics that are of interest to both fellow scientists and the general public. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views that scientists have on these issues. Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by reacting to each others’ arguments moderated by one of the members of the editorial staff. Once the discussion has reached the point where it is clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why, the editioral staff will round off the discussion. The decision on when that point will have been reached is up to the editorial staff. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion. The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.

This site is for both sides. They have both skeptics and warmists, hardly a denier blog unless you think any scientist who is a skeptic should not have a say.

So did Skeptical Science not have an easy click to my reply? Were you unable to form your own thoughts on this? It's hard when Skeptical Science only gives you part of the information. It kind of leaves you hanging. So go with the denier blog answer if that makes you feel better.

“8 point Buck”

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#39050 Sep 10, 2013
Your links are correct young lady.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39051 Sep 10, 2013
More bogus hype by uneducated journalist following the directions of the paper owners.

The area of 100% ice is not 60% larger. The area that has 'at least 15% coverage' is 60% larger because it was 'spread out' by the winds.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39052 Sep 10, 2013
Wrong tab. Sorry.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#39053 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of my links are from original sources or mainstream media.
Yes. Mostly Daily Mail or 'National Enquirer'. Beside the 'two headed martian' column. You confess that your 'sources' are merely entertainment and propaganda.. Try reading science journals.. if you can..
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39054 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet more cut'n paste spam from the denier blogs.
Again, I guess now NASA is a denier blog and the paper you posted was from a denier blog.

I got all my information from NASA on this one. Both my paper and your paper came from NASA. The difference between you and me is that I actually read what you post and what I post.

My paper was from NASA ICEsat showing Anartica ice mass increasing. Your paper was from NASA showing Anartica ice mass decreasing.

From your paper:

They also combined measurements collected by different types of satellite sensors, such as ESA's radar missions; NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat); and the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE).

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/...

Now see, I can read, and they used the information they collected from ICEsat to determine Antarctic mass and combined it with other studies and did a 20-year study. So I know that ICEsat showed positive mass, so I can infer from that there is conflicting information regarding Antarctic mass.

The paper said this:

Together, these ice sheets are losing more than three times as much ice each year (equivalent to sea level rise of 0.04 inches or 0.95 millimeters) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.01 inches or 0.27 millimeters). About two-thirds of the loss is coming from Greenland, with the rest from Antarctica.

Now from that I get the information that there is a total of 0.04 inches of sea rise a year and then they tell me that 1/3 of that is from Antarctica, which comes out to 0.013 inches per year, which is statistically zero.

No denier blog needed, all right there from NASA.

Again, if it makes you feel better to call NASA a denier blog, go for it.

And as far as the other papers I posted on that same post, all original sources. AGW hypothesis never expected Antarctic sea ice to grow.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39055 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Note the word *scientist*, imbecile.
Hansen and Wadhams are agreeing with a prediction for 2016, imbecile.
Who is not a scientist?

Wadhams on the 2013 prediction in 2007:

Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski. "Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented. "The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab. "Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."

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

Wadhams only made his 2015/2016 last year.

This is from 2008:

We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would." Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2...
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39056 Sep 10, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You're doing a great job keeping on target here. Especially as each new warmist pops in, doesn't understand the context, and gives their dime store input -- which is mostly just recycling claims made earlier (which they would know if they would read back a bit).
Keep it up. They're either going to give up (and call you a bunch of names), or make an admission they don't want to make.
Well let's see, I've been called an imbecile, an idiot, a moron and then told my information is just from denier blogs. Great thinkers here.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39057 Sep 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even a 'claim'. It was an off the cuff remark based on a discussion of 'if this goes on'. In other words, a speculation.
Are you two trying to make each other feel better? But you know what, I do agree with both of you. I believe everything these scientists say are off the cuff with no basis for reality.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#39058 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand, because you have no science or mathematics background. Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it:
"Also, sea ice has NOT increased by 60%. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."
Pay attention, we were talking about 60% increase over 2012.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#39060 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for replying to my post, that you can't understand,
apparently you don't understand....or better yet comprehend.
DO try to keep up, son.
Btw...don't pretend to know my academic background, son, you fail more miserably at that than your pretending to understand climate.
Lol

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39061 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of my links are from original sources or mainstream media.
The links you put in.

But search for your other quotes, and it's always a denier blog that you got them from.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 51 min Cheech the Conser... 1,509,842
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Dudley 8,077
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Mabinogi 313,678
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 5 hr Mikeymike116 20,936
DCF Protest in CT & We want your stories!!! (Jul '12) 13 hr Vaneisha 85
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 hr TRD 71,275
News 16 Members And Associates Of La Familia Gang Ar... (May '08) Mon Hypocrites 305

Hartford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hartford Mortgages