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

Full story: Newsday 46,738
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38711 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.
A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.
I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.
You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.
When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.
I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.
So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.
I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.
So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:
Deniers are idiots.
A few years ago it was a lot easier to refute wasn’t it? But now that it has become well publicized that the Earth is not warming as predicted and new scientific studies have emerged regarding water vapor, climate sensitivity, PDO, climate model failures, solar activity, antarctica ice at record levels, it becomes harder to refute. So shorthand form, you’re lazy and resort to name calling.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38712 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. The first post for which I have a record is November of 2009. There were fence-sitters then, now there are nothing but deniers. And I've never "converted" a denier.
I said the other day that you guys wore me out. Southern expression, mostly. But it also meant that you are tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights. You're just no fun.
.
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.

Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38713 Sep 1, 2013
bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
Up date mu talking points?? Hard to keep up??? I never once mentioned Antarctica Sea Ice now did I. You need to more carefully read what is written to you.
Here is the first sentence from your post to me:

Antarctica Ice is staying about the same.

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

How do you type something and not know you typed it? Like I said the new talking point is that Antarctic sea ice is increasing, consistent with what was predicted.(even though that was never predicted.)

Example:

The recent observed positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent are at odds with the expectation of melting sea ice in a warming world. More problematic yet, climate models indicate that sea ice should decrease around Antarctica in response to both increasing greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.

More examples here at my previous post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38714 Sep 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic creationist Gish gallop.
Too tiresome.
Looks good on your CV, not on mine, as Dawkins said.
Krusty spends all day looking for denialist arguments from denier blogs, cutting and pasting them here, considers this a debate, and a weariness to refute any of her second-hand denier arguments some sort of victory.
Cheered on by her usual companions in this little denial circle jerk.
Hey remember when you said climate has been stable for 11,000 years and posted a link to prove it? Remember when I copied and pasted from YOUR LINK showing the shortfalls of the study as stated by the AUTHOR of the study? Remember when you accused me of going to a “denier” site and getting that information? Remember when I asked you to copy and paste the 2nd paragraph from your link? Remember when you did that? I don’t. That’s because you were wrong, you didn’t even read your own link, and it is much easier to just accuse me of lying and making up crap than admitting your own mistakes.

thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Holocene_Temperature_Vari ations.png

And another really easy thing you all do is bring up creationism. So just to let know I gave up on religion long ago because creationism made no sense to me. What I was being told about God and the world made no sense to me. The reason I became agnostic about religion was because I was SKEPTICAL and questioned all the time. So I approach all things in life as a skeptic. AGW is no different. When the science didn't make sense to me, I asked questions and researched both sides of the issue. I have learned a lot. And to be totally honest, I was believing the AGW scientists who told me that the sun had little affect on temperatures, so I never really looked into that aspect. Fun Facts has provided really valuable information about solar activity that I didn’t know before..thanks Fun Facts. The sun was like the final piece of the puzzle for me. Because now everything makes more sense to me.

So here is what you want me to believe. CO2 is increasing at alarming rates. CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures. The temperatures will go up about 0.2 C a decade. The poles will melt and the seas will rise. Now that there is a standstill in temperature rise for 15 years. the arctic sea ice is at the same place it was in 1993, the anartcic sea ice is growing at record rates, you want me to believe that CO2 is taking a break and will come roaring back. That doesn’t make sense. What really brings it together for me is the PDO, which is another thing scientists have been talking about for years. The last 30 years the PDO was in its warming phase and the solar activity was at a maximum. So the AGW hypothesis can work well in this scenario, but now that the PDO is in the cooling phase, you want me to believe that the effects of CO2 just go and hide somewhere, but will be back by 2030. So if the PDO and the sun override CO2 greenhouse effect in the cooling phase that tells me that the PDO and the sun were the primary drivers in the warming phase. You are asking me to defy reason by expecting me to believe CO2 effects are on hiatus. So my beliefs are the world has been warming in a natural cyclical way. The increased warmth in the 20th century was a combination of PDO, solar activity, and yes CO2, but not to any alarming degree that is reported...overestimation of CO2, underestimation of PDO and solar activity.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38715 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what you were trying to say. Heat is absorbed by the oceans at the surface. Depending on where at the surface the ocean itself will be more or less saline. Some areas of the ocean, like the earth, do not receive much rainfall other areas receive a lot of rainfall. Less rainfall and the surface is more saline, more rainfall and the fresh water tends to 'ride the surface' of the saline water because fresh water is less dense.
Once heat is absorbed at the surface you might think of it as getting a seat on a roller coaster. The heat received is transported throughout the system in horizontal and vertical patterns. As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process.
Warm water is less dense than cold water. Low saline water is less dense than warm saline water. All the heated water will follow the same course but it makes a difference where the water got on the ride in how it impacts climate.
As the water cools and as evaporation makes the once fresh water more saline, the water becomes more dense and drops to lower levels of the ocean circulation.
La Nina is part of this process. When the pacific is in the negative phase of it's oscillation we experience more frequent and more impactful La Ninas.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/...
Lesshypemorefact posted this earlier:

There is no 'decadal cycle' in air temperature or coorelation of the solar cycle with the temperature. The oceans and land have too much thermal mass to be affected by short term cycles such as the sunspot cycle except in the 200 year changes to amplitude which has enough effect to be seen. However, even that cycle is only a SMALL factor (< 0.2C) overall and on a downward trend. The cycle 24 and 25 are just data points in that cycle.

This paper was written in 2000. It was talking about the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle, which is an 80-year cycle, and the effects of the solar activity on patterns of global temperatures and ocean temperatures. This seems to be saying the opposite of LHMF.

The paper says the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulates solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena's as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures). Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.

That is the case, then 1997 is a year of climate fluctuation and a drop of global earth air and sea temperature is predicted soon similar to that happened during similar circumstances around 1800 and 1900, with increased El Nino and La Nina frequencies leading to wide spread flood -drought hazards.

http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

What do you know of this cycle?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38716 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.
Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
That's what I don't understand. If we are so tiring and boring, why waste their time with us?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38717 Sep 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I don't understand. If we are so tiring and boring, why waste their time with us?
It's just fun. They're not here for the science, just the social aspects of the threads. Where else could he have said what he said and not been rebuked for it by the people who knew him. Oh maybe in a locker room where bravado prevails, but not at the dinner table.

He's taking his aggression out here because he can't do it in his real world. I guess in a way it's good that he has an outlet for his feelings, but make no mistake, his posts don't really have much to do with climate change.

Try some of the other threads. You'll notice the other threads such as the ones about the PDO and cooling climate are not getting much attention from our residents AGWs.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38718 Sep 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lesshypemorefact posted this earlier:
There is no 'decadal cycle' in air temperature or coorelation of the solar cycle with the temperature. The oceans and land have too much thermal mass to be affected by short term cycles such as the sunspot cycle except in the 200 year changes to amplitude which has enough effect to be seen. However, even that cycle is only a SMALL factor (< 0.2C) overall and on a downward trend. The cycle 24 and 25 are just data points in that cycle.
This paper was written in 2000. It was talking about the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle, which is an 80-year cycle, and the effects of the solar activity on patterns of global temperatures and ocean temperatures. This seems to be saying the opposite of LHMF.
The paper says the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulates solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena's as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures). Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.
That is the case, then 1997 is a year of climate fluctuation and a drop of global earth air and sea temperature is predicted soon similar to that happened during similar circumstances around 1800 and 1900, with increased El Nino and La Nina frequencies leading to wide spread flood -drought hazards.
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
What do you know of this cycle?
This is huge. Start with a study of solar inertial motion. Most bad science starts with a lack of information.

Scientists did think at one time that our sun was stable in the center of our solar system and that it's output was constant. Neither statement is correct.

Our sun although the largest object in our solar system is still impacted by the gravitational forces of all other objects in the solar system. It has a barycentric orbit.

The energy output of our sun ebbs and flows with various cycles. To understand the amount of solar radiation the earth receives you will have to layer both of the above processes.

Then to understand it's impact, you will have to understand how it enters the earth's system and layer all of the various climate processes of the earth.

It's a facinating study I have engaged in for years and will probably never understand it all. But if you want to expand your brain, the sun is a big subject.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38719 Sep 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
A few years ago it was a lot easier to refute wasn’t it? But now that it has become well publicized that the Earth is not warming as predicted and new scientific studies have emerged regarding water vapor, climate sensitivity, PDO, climate model failures, solar activity, antarctica ice at record levels, it becomes harder to refute. So shorthand form, you’re lazy and resort to name calling.
LOL, of course not, you silly goose! You're such a kidder!

Can you not read, or is it that you cannot understand? As I stated, I have refuted your side's arguments a thousand times. Do you have any new ones? No.

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. The first post for which I have a record is November of 2009. There were fence-sitters then, now there are nothing but deniers. And I've never "converted" a denier.

I said the other day that you guys wore me out. Southern expression, mostly. But it also meant that you are tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights. You're just no fun.

Calling names? You don't like your label? Change it, then! Deniers are not serious skeptics; they, you, are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie. The shoe fits you entirely too well, Cinderella.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38720 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.
Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
No, it's because the "skeptics" are not real sceptics, and they don't post in good faith. They post the same old canards over and over no matter how many times they are debunked.

They get the contempt because they deserve it.

There's not much you can say to a robot that makes any difference. It's true that I don't have much influence over stupid and/or lying robots.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38721 Sep 1, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I don't understand. If we are so tiring and boring, why waste their time with us?
Lies must be confronted and called lies.

Denial must be confronted and called denial.

I resolve to waste less time with you, but I won't let you get away with spreading falsehoods without saying something.

I'm not going to waste my time doing your homework.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38722 Sep 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, fun farts is predicting 30 years of global cooling.
Science of course is predicting 30 more years of warming.
fun farts is an old man of course, so he is free to make predictions that fly in the face of science because he won't be around to see what happens or deal with it.
Free to make believe reality will conform to his ideology.
And climate scientists are making all kinds of predictions and whether they die or not, they have noting to deal with either.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38723 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.
Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
It would seem part of a coordinated effort on the part of warmists, to wit, propaganda.

President Obama has announced the biggest steps to fight climate change that any president has ever taken. He's not waiting around for climate deniers in Congress who won't even acknowledge the scientific fact of climate change to face reality in order to act—he's taking bold steps forward.

http://ofa.barackobama.com/climate/

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38724 Sep 1, 2013
The science of our Representatives....

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-15): During his introductory remarks at a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, Representative Shimkus read from the bible to prove that global warming will not destroy the earth because only God can decide when the earth will end:“The earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”[House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing, 3/25/2009]

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC-05): North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx referenced books by climate-change skeptics and lamented that some environmentalists “think that we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does.”[Huffington Post, 4/7/11]

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK-05):“This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else. And that generation will be ticked.”[Edmond Sun, 2/16/10]

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK):“I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.”[Inhofe, 7/9/03]

Rep. Don Young (R-AK-At Large):“I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.”[KTVA Interview, 2/18/10]

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01): It’s “bad science.” It’s “Al Gore.” It’s a “naturally occurring cycle.” You should “look at the numbers.”[Grist, 11/5/12]

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA-10): In June 2009, Broun received a standing ovation when he said that global warming is a “hoax”. He said “Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.”[ThinkProgress, 6/26/09]

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND-At Large): When asked if he believed that human activity is contributing to climate change, Mr. Cramer answered “no” and went on to say:“The manipulation of free markets by economic policy disguised as environmental policy based on inconclusive science should not be tolerated. Free people producing energy other free people want and are willing to pay for should be the core of U.S. energy policy.”[Project Vote Smart Political Courage Survey]

Pretty sad when science is determined by and held at bay by politicians....
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38725 Sep 1, 2013
>>So here's the state of play of climate science a third of a century into the global warming hysteria. They don't have a reliable baseline of global temperature measurements that would allow them to say what is normal and natural and what isn't. Their projections about future warming are demonstrably failing to predict the actual data. And now they have been caught, yet again, fudging the numbers and manipulating the graphs to show a rapid 20th-century warming that they want to be true but which they can't back up with actual evidence.

A theory with this many holes in it would be have been thrown out long ago, if not for the fact that it conveniently serves the political function of indicting fossil fuels as a planet-destroying evil and allowing radical environmentalists to put a modern, scientific face on their primitivist crusade to shut down industrial civilization.

But can't we all just stop calling this "science" now?

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/201...
Follow us:@RCP_Articles on Twitter
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38726 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whitewash.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Indeed, it's the denier mo.

OTOH.. Using an economic model very similar to the one used by Lord Stern in his 2006 review of the economics of climate change, the researchers examined the impact of the release of 50-gigatonnes of methane over a decade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

They worked out that this would increase climate impacts such as flooding, sea level rise, damage to agriculture, and human health to the tune of $60 trillion.

"That's an economic time bomb that at this stage has not been recognised on the world stage," said Prof Gail Whiteman at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, and one of the authors.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38727 Sep 1, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed, it's the denier mo.
OTOH.. Using an economic model very similar to the one used by Lord Stern in his 2006 review of the economics of climate change, the researchers examined the impact of the release of 50-gigatonnes of methane over a decade.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
They worked out that this would increase climate impacts such as flooding, sea level rise, damage to agriculture, and human health to the tune of $60 trillion.
"That's an economic time bomb that at this stage has not been recognised on the world stage," said Prof Gail Whiteman at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, and one of the authors.
psst... warmists have been saying 'the sky is falling' for years so another calamity is nothing new.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38728 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
This is huge. Start with a study of solar inertial motion. Most bad science starts with a lack of information.
Scientists did think at one time that our sun was stable in the center of our solar system and that it's output was constant. Neither statement is correct.
Our sun although the largest object in our solar system is still impacted by the gravitational forces of all other objects in the solar system. It has a barycentric orbit.
The energy output of our sun ebbs and flows with various cycles. To understand the amount of solar radiation the earth receives you will have to layer both of the above processes.
Then to understand it's impact, you will have to understand how it enters the earth's system and layer all of the various climate processes of the earth.
It's a facinating study I have engaged in for years and will probably never understand it all. But if you want to expand your brain, the sun is a big subject.
It truly amazes me that AGW scientists make claims that the sun has little impact on the climate. They seem to make the argument about the sun so simplistic. Like I said earlier, I was believing them that the sun had been at a minimum for the last 30 years, not realizing all the other aspects they don't take into account. Where are these other threads that talk about PDO and cooling climate? Are they on topix?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38729 Sep 1, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Pretty sad when science is determined by and held at bay by politicians....
Yes, yes it is....

According to News Service Bloomberg it is currently being discussed whether to mention the ongoing 15-year pause in global in the 5th Assessment Report“(AR 5) to be released in late September, or if perhaps it would be better to simply ignore it in order not to unnecessarily supply so-called ‘climate skeptics’ with ammunition.”

http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/01/die-welt-v...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38731 Sep 1, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
psst... warmists have been saying 'the sky is falling' for years so another calamity is nothing new.
Whitewasher go home!

It is well known that CO2 warms the planet, but less well-known that it also makes the alkaline seas more acidic when it is absorbed from the air.

Absorption is particularly fast in cold water so the Arctic is especially susceptible, and the recent decreases in summer sea ice have exposed more sea surface to atmospheric CO2.

The Arctic's vulnerability is exacerbated by increasing flows of freshwater from rivers and melting land ice, as freshwater is less effective at chemically neutralising the acidifying effects of CO2.

The researchers say the Nordic Seas are acidifying over a wide range of depths - most quickly in surface waters and more slowly in deep waters.

The report’s chairman, Richard Bellerby from the Norwegian Institute for Water Research, told BBC News that they had mapped a mosaic of different levels of pH across the region, with the scale of change largely determined by the local intake of freshwater.

“Large rivers flow into the Arctic, which has an enormous catchment for its size,” he said.

“There’s slow mixing so in effect we get a sort of freshwater lens on the top of the sea in some places, and freshwater lowers the concentration of ions that buffers pH change. The sea ice has been a lid on the Arctic, so the loss of ice is allowing fast uptake of CO2.”

This is being made worse, he said, by organic carbon running off the land – a secondary effect of regional warming.

“Continued rapid change is a certainty,” he said.

“We have already passed critical thresholds. Even if we stop emissions now, acidification will last tens of thousands of years. It is a very big experiment.”

The research team monitored decreases in seawater pH of about 0.02 per decade since the late 1960s in the Iceland and Barents seas.

Chemical effects related to acidification have also been encountered in surface waters of the Bering Strait and the Canada Basin of the central Arctic Ocean.

Scientists estimate that the average acidity of surface ocean waters worldwide is now about 30% higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
[from bbc]

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 10 min _Zoey_ 9,910
Let's play a game (May '11) 11 min _Zoey_ 1,041
jets talk back (Dec '07) 17 min JETS 4 LIFE 9,047
Nassau/Suffolk High School Football (Nov '11) 33 min suff III 10,606
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 41 min NYStateOfMind 308,027
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 45 min Junket 305,686
YOUNG BLACK THUGS are DESTROYING the GAME of FO... 56 min the real deal 5
•••

Jackson-Heights News Video

•••
•••

Jackson-Heights Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Jackson-Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Jackson-Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Jackson-Heights
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••