Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63861 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.

Mothra

United States

#40400 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No 1.
<quoted text>
Focus on short term trends.
<quoted text>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/rec...
Oooo... another global warming study. Haven't they predicted just about every whether calamity is global warming?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Looks like you're covered. Whatever happens a 'study' is ready to go.

Yeah... there's some serious 'science' there -- no one is ever wrong, and an you've got a 'study' handy for everything.

<yawn x2>
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40401 Oct 7, 2013
Yawn to infinity..

but say "we must do something to prevent more damages to the world we live in."
Mothra

United States

#40402 Oct 7, 2013
>>GREEN taxes have already added at least £100 a year to household energy bills and successive governments have viewed the threat of global warming and rising CO2 levels as a as a means of brow-beating the public while making them pay for the privilege.

Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming – hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry.

Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness.

Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical.

But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated.

Scientists are admitting that warnings of global catastrophe were way off the mark.“The odds have come down”, admitted Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at Oxford University who until recently believed that we were in for an apocalyptic temperature rise of five degrees this century.

The new Met Office figures indicate that there has been no significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomme...

Burn the heretics! Burn 'em!

Oh wait... that'll cause more CO2.

Stone the heretics! Stone 'em!

(whew... almost had to buy some more indulgences, I mean 'offsets')
Mothra

United States

#40403 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Yawn to infinity..
but say "we must do something to prevent more damages to the world we live in."
If you really believed in the manure you're spreading, I've got a solution for you.

Do your part, sit in the dark.

Oh wait... who am I talking to?

A global warming hypocrite.

Run along...
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40404 Oct 7, 2013
Troll ignored..

But say:“All the evidence makes it clear that leaving the issue of climate change for future generations to deal with is a phenomenally high-risk option."[Professor Rowan Sutton]
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40405 Oct 7, 2013
University of Reading scientists have warned the world’s governments not to ignore the findings of the most comprehensive assessment on climate change.

The Fifth Assessment Report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published at a major conference in Stockholm last month.

The landmark report finds that scientists are 95 per cent sure that the humans are the ‘dominant cause’ of global warming since the 1950s.
Mothra

United States

#40406 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
SpaceBlues wrote:
*poof*

More CO2 spewed into the atmosphere courtesy of a global warming hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40407 Oct 7, 2013
New in Nature Climate Change: the entire life cycle of harvesting coal and turning it into gas produces 36 to 82 percent more total greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal directly.
Cut n Paste

Savage, MN

#40408 Oct 7, 2013
What caused the "Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean?"
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#40409 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you are too partisan to actually look at the evidence, so your rationalization is in the psychological form.
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_...
I have no idea how looking at observations is partisan. I look at past predictions made by AGW scientists and compare them to the observations of today. There is nothing political or partisan about that. I guess it's your way to rationalize my posts so you can dismiss them. Whatever.

But here is a past prediction:

An article written in 2009 stated a new paper coming out that was supposed to “silence the skeptics.” It stated that the world would heat up 150% more than IPCC predictions in the next 5 years. The Met Office also came out in 2007 stating that global warming would come roaring back by 2009 and by 2014 would be 0.3 degrees warmer than 2004. One of the comments in the comments sections said this:

“Contrary to the subheading, rapid warming in the next five years certainly will not silence the sceptics-- it's hard to imagine that anything could. They'll just say that it's solar activity, as they've said all along, and El Niño, nothing to do with us, and not worth lifting a finger to do anything about it.”

So funny how it is you that is now rationalizing. You are the ones coming up with excuses such as the heat is in the deep oceans. The skeptics have been saying that AGW is not catastrophic and that the warming has been largely due to natural variability, which in fact fits better into the climate models than the CO2 driver model.

kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#40410 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No 1.
<quoted text>
Focus on short term trends.
<quoted text>
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/rec...
LOL….the Met Office? You mean the Met Office that had to change their 10-year predictions on warming 2 times within 5 years?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#40411 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses no. 4:
<quoted text>
Keep eyes covered and ears closed.
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weath...
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:

Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability.

There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.

Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#40412 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No. 5:
<quoted text>
Look for "good news" from science and exaggerate it's importance.
<quoted text>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Your rationalization is kicking in here by you trying to downplay the importance of climate sensitivity. It is actually very important. Catastrophic AGW depends on a high climate sensitivity. The AR5 has lowered the climate sensitivity parameters and now for the first time has given no best estimate of climate sensitivity due to lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

So they are now less confident in climate sensitivity, but are more confident than ever that we will have catastrophic AGW. This is what you are trying to rationalize.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#40413 Oct 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Krusty's excuses No. 6:
<quoted text>
Always focus on the doubt and stress uncertainty, even when, especially when the scientific assessment is that the evidence of serious risk far outweighs the uncertainties and doubts remaining.
The evidence that the sun or the PDO is responsible for global warming, or that clouds are going to be a negative feed back is just not there.
We are talking about science and you are talking about politics. The uncertainties are massive when we are talking about the climate. If you don't know the effects of clouds, sun, PDO, etc., there is no way you can make a scientific certainty that CO2 is the main driver. Especially since the science has now stated there is no best guess as to what the climate sensitivity is and especially since this 15-year standstill was never predicted by the climate models, as can be seen when you go back to 2007 and all climate models were predicting a rapid rise in temperature over the next 5 years. Something is wrong and the uncertainties matter. Stop trying to rationalize that they don't.
Retired Farmer

Paducah, KY

#40414 Oct 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You must revise because it's not realistic.
What are they going to eat?
You must not be from a farm background. My grandparents came from the Appalachian Mountains, where people existed as subsistence farmers for many generations. All it takes is a little plot of level ground in a creek valley or "hollow". I still know most of those subsistence farming skills and I passed it along to my daughter and her husband, who is also from a farming background.

You could do it on the northern Plains too provided that the area does not turn into the Dust Bowl again. I know a college professor who recently bought an old abandoned homestead and 160 acres of basically wasteland (meaning not suited to mechanized agriculture)in South Dakota as insurance against a societal breakdown. He's a city boy and so's his wife, but they are actually learning how to farm, raise livestock (pigs and chickens), and hunt - just in case. Please don't think they (or me) are "Survivalist" types that want to live in a bunker/armory. We're not. But the handwriting appears to be on the wall for some sort of global catastrophe - enviormental, economic, societal - a sort of perfect super storm of everything coming together at once.
Mothra

United States

#40415 Oct 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that there is a ninety-five percent chance that ninety-nine percent of us are contributing one-hundred percent of the extra GHG emissions on this planet.
I'll take that for a dollar!
A dollar is a real amount. When someone posts as evidence a series of percentages based on a bunch of other percentages, I have to ask for the numbers behind the percentages.

Start with this... how many climate scientists are there? Is that for the world, a country or an IPCC report?

A full list would be helpful.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40416 Oct 7, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
What caused the "Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean?"
The answer requires you to know science and mathematics. Without knowledge, you have no idea, yes?
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40417 Oct 7, 2013
Retired Farmer wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not be from a farm background. My grandparents came from the Appalachian Mountains, where people existed as subsistence farmers for many generations. All it takes is a little plot of level ground in a creek valley or "hollow". I still know most of those subsistence farming skills and I passed it along to my daughter and her husband, who is also from a farming background.
You could do it on the northern Plains too provided that the area does not turn into the Dust Bowl again. I know a college professor who recently bought an old abandoned homestead and 160 acres of basically wasteland (meaning not suited to mechanized agriculture)in South Dakota as insurance against a societal breakdown. He's a city boy and so's his wife, but they are actually learning how to farm, raise livestock (pigs and chickens), and hunt - just in case. Please don't think they (or me) are "Survivalist" types that want to live in a bunker/armory. We're not. But the handwriting appears to be on the wall for some sort of global catastrophe - enviormental, economic, societal - a sort of perfect super storm of everything coming together at once.
I am not.

Do you think a typical denier is already set for farming?

SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#40418 Oct 7, 2013
There's no way the dense oldkristy could write replies to Fair Game. It must be a denier committe, LOL. Five in a row, wow.

Still wrong, though. Thoroughly WRONG!
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#40419 Oct 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
From the IPCC AR5 regarding “extreme” weather:
Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability.
There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.
Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.
In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.
In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.
In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.
Very helpful contribution for better understanding the significance of the AR5.

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
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 13 min Jim from Phoenix 338,055
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... (Nov '16) 1 hr NEMO 4,277
media to blackout trump re-election 1 hr Wall specialist 2
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr Carlos 45,109
Gay Teens NYC (Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn) (Jun '16) 1 hr Wolvesmane 209
Topix Human Sexuality Forum Discontinued (Jun '16) 2 hr OussideU2 1,770
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 4 hr Princess Hey 16,776

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages