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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
33,121 - 33,140 of 46,226 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35092
Apr 12, 2013
 
my 2 cents worth

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35093
Apr 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
You're a liar, Brainless_G. Plain and simple. Don't lie about what I say, boy.
He said: "...4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future. >>It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication...." That claim isn't based on science, it's a faith based belief.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35095
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong is wrong.
Once again, Teddy is WRONG.
Data is data. Facts are facts.

Once again, I post links to authoritative data, and once again SpaceCase posts completely unsupported bullshyte assertions.

SpaceCase = Fail.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35096
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

*data are data.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35097
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Troll warning. Avoid feeding it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35098
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
Anyway amongst all the crap that the deniers post the one consistent point they make is no matter how much development, no matter how much land clearing takes place and no matter how much fossil fuel we burn combined on the planet, it comes at NO cost! Which reflects how advanced we are as a culture when that type of thinking takes place along with the right to bear arms or killing others under a banner of religious or political beliefs. About as advanced as a house brick!
First peace treaty on this planet, we think:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_-... (1269_a.C.)_-_Foto_G._Dall%27O rto_28-5-2006.jpg
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35099
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]climate modeling is able to predict......it's a faith based belief.[/QUOTE]

I predict 'lyin' brian' will make more errors. My prediction is based on:

When dirtling,'earthling has no brain','eart hling(alien has no affinity for Earth)' was around,'lyin' brian', with its errors of as much as 1 million TIMES, was small pototoes to dirtling's error of 500 million TIMES. Jealous,'lyin' brian' then popped an error of 73 million TIMES. Still not as great as dirtling's 500 million TIMES, but 'lyin' brian' gave a good effort.

But now, with dirtling gone(6 months?),'lyin' brian' dumps an error of 2.5+ trillion TIMES,~35,000 TIMES more than its error of 73 million times. I knew that 'lyin' brian' could beat dirtling...... & dirtling never got its hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Very good,'lyin' brian'...... you live up to your name,'lyin' brian'. I'm glad I adopted it from Kyle.
Osama Ben Gurion

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35100
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Obama bin Biden wrote:
Yeah, hurry up and act before this farce called "Global Warming" is exposed. Are'nt we seeing record cold snaps for this early in the season.
.......... See SLIME and PUNISHMENT about the large carbon footprint of the zio-imperialists and the JDL Wolfpack Stalkers with cars with fl tags 858 IWJ , M95 9ME , AFQ B30 , 494 MIU , 547 VMJ , 243 PIE , 244 PIE , 668 PCK , BAL Y35 , 711 NNW , RNJ46 , X12 OKE and GOAMG ,,,,,, See THE GATEKEEPERS and Little Farvel Dalsimer Infiltrates Rick Sandler's INSIGHT GROUP of ZOG .
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35101
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

SpaceBlues wrote:
Troll warning. Avoid feeding it.
No warning necessary, SpaceCase - your bona fides as a troll are already well-established here and across Topix.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35102
Apr 13, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

LOL.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35103
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense.
Why don't you provide evidence to your nonsense? You can't because you have none.
Let's take the US trees. Are you telling me there were not trees where there are now highways, pipelines, airports, housing for about 330 million people, supermarkets, schools, hospitals, facilities for the biggest army in the world, ports, factories, refineries, mines, sewage ponds, electricity transmission lines, stadiums of all kinds, shopping centers, large farms, large ranches, animal slaughter conglomerates, harvest silos, animal grazing fields, warehouses, garbage dump sites, grass lawns, supermarkets, truck stops, parking lots, police stations of all kinds, the most and largest prisons in the world, detention centers, zoos, play grounds, rodeo grounds, film studios, opera houses, theaters, concert halls, track fields, rest homes, pharmacies, border facilities, new government buildings of all kinds, bus depots, golf courses, tennis courts, ball fields, telescope sites, museums, business buildings, court buildings, city buildings, dams, fish ponds, swimming pools, city-water and distribution systems, end-to-end railroads, shipyards, boat hangers, plane hangers, NASA/space facilities, immigration facilities, garages, car repair shops, tree farms, helicopter pads, the biggest mail system in the world, tv stations, rental car agencies, car lots, electronic factories, Apple, MS, ski facilities, ski hills, telecommunication facilities, sink holes, lumber yards, movie theaters, sewage lines, telephone towers, restaurants, fast food eateries, cafetarias, Walmart, Topix headquarters,..?
ecopreservationsociaty.org/information-refore...

One of many dude.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35104
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.
>>Thanks, I try to be civil.:)
1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
>>The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
>>Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
>>I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.
I have to do this response in 2 posts.

1. The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.

>>The IPCC calculates with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. We hear we must decrease the burning of fossil fuel, tax carbon or implement cap and trade. The IPCC calculates that due to the increased CO2 temperatures will rise 0.3 C per decade in the 21st century. It’ pretty clear that they link increased CO2 with temperature increase.

2. Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."

>>Mann’s hockey stick was promoted as 20th century temperatures were the highest in 1000 years, so unprecedented.

3. I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.

>>Everyone is saying that CO2 is the main driver increasing temperatures, and again, like I said above, if the IPCC and scientists and activists don’t believe it is the main driver of temperature increase, then why the drive to tax CO2 and the constant insistence we must stop burning fossil fuels? If the climate scientists know that CO2 is not the main driver of the climate, why don’t the models reflect that? For instance, Susan Solomon’s paper states this:
“The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add. The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.”

So the paper suggests that water vapor was responsible for almost 1/3 of GW and the paper states that this does not undermine the consensus that emissions from human activity (fossil fuels-CO2) is not the main driver, but that they do need to call for a “closer examination” of the way computer models consider water vapor. If water vapor is responsible for 1/3, and as you say, greenhouse gases would have many contributors, then why are these not incorporated in the models?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35105
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
>>It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly.
>>Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.
I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared?
>>Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?

>>We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?
4. It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.

>>The world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality. So there is a problem.

5. Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.

>> Mann is the one who put out a paper stating 20th century temperatures were unprecedented. In order for you to unequivocally show a link to man, you have to show that temperatures have never been so high. Temperatures have stayed flat for 17 years. It has been confirmed by many climate scientists and the MET office and the IPCC. I haven’t heard anyone deny that.

7. Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?

>>Yes that’s true, it happens on both sides.
Something isn’t proven to be true just because there is a consensus. There are many factors to explain temperature increases and now we have a 17-year flattening and many scientists are now questioning the models, the reasons for the flattening, other factors such as sun, clouds, water vapor that drive the climate.

8. We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?

>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35106
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First peace treaty on this planet, we think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_-... (1269_a.C.)_-_Foto_G._Dall%27O rto_28-5-2006.jpg
True again.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35107
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Shooter McGavin

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35108
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Listen to what I say.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35109
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Your solution has to do with conserving resources and has nothing to do with decreasing the Earth's temperature. Two different things. If solar panels and electric cars are in demand, then resources will be needed to produce these items. Won't you just have another problem with consumption demand and the Earth's resources, i.e. mining for lithium and tellurium? What exactly are you accomplishing?

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/f...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10077965-54... #!

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35110
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to do this response in 2 posts.
1. The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
>>The IPCC calculates with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. We hear we must decrease the burning of fossil fuel, tax carbon or implement cap and trade. The IPCC calculates that due to the increased CO2 temperatures will rise 0.3 C per decade in the 21st century. It’ pretty clear that they link increased CO2 with temperature increase.
2. Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."
>>Mann’s hockey stick was promoted as 20th century temperatures were the highest in 1000 years, so unprecedented.
3. I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.
>>Everyone is saying that CO2 is the main driver increasing temperatures, and again, like I said above, if the IPCC and scientists and activists don’t believe it is the main driver of temperature increase, then why the drive to tax CO2 and the constant insistence we must stop burning fossil fuels? If the climate scientists know that CO2 is not the main driver of the climate, why don’t the models reflect that? For instance, Susan Solomon’s paper states this:
“The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add. The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.”
So the paper suggests that water vapor was responsible for almost 1/3 of GW and the paper states that this does not undermine the consensus that emissions from human activity (fossil fuels-CO2) is not the main driver, but that they do need to call for a “closer examination” of the way computer models consider water vapor. If water vapor is responsible for 1/3, and as you say, greenhouse gases would have many contributors, then why are these not incorporated in the models?
LOL. You will never make sense in science.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35111
Apr 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
4. It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.
>>The world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality. So there is a problem.
5. Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.
>> Mann is the one who put out a paper stating 20th century temperatures were unprecedented. In order for you to unequivocally show a link to man, you have to show that temperatures have never been so high. Temperatures have stayed flat for 17 years. It has been confirmed by many climate scientists and the MET office and the IPCC. I haven’t heard anyone deny that.
7. Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?
>>Yes that’s true, it happens on both sides.
Something isn’t proven to be true just because there is a consensus. There are many factors to explain temperature increases and now we have a 17-year flattening and many scientists are now questioning the models, the reasons for the flattening, other factors such as sun, clouds, water vapor that drive the climate.
8. We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?
>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
Keep trying if you are paid by the pound. You represent deniers as bad as any other denier. LOL.
drink The hive

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35112
Apr 14, 2013
 
For F//uck' Sake - Seriously? At A Festival? Hookers?...

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5278/poolc...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Norfolk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min Lily Boca Raton Fl 1,095,514
Brittany Reed aka Smith 5 hr letitbeknown 1
Jessica Mounts 5 hr getittogether 1
james Arthur Segura 7 hr laughing out loud 43
Review: DRS Fantom Works (Jul '13) 9 hr Dumblucky 33
Debate: Marijuana - Virginia Beach, VA (Aug '10) 14 hr Sadbodhi 116
Hundreds in Phoenix protest against illegal imm... (Apr '10) Aug 16 Taxpayer for years 281

Search the Norfolk Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Norfolk Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Norfolk People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Norfolk News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Norfolk
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••