Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61476 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.

TrollBot

London, UK

#33404 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you have come to the realisation that you jumped to completely wrong presumptions about my interpretation of this paper.
Apology accepted.
I agree this paper is certainly not an embarrassment for GW theory, and I never said it was.
As for the _A_ part of AGW Theory, I would only observe this paper really has nothing that bears one way or the other on this aspect.
Troll. Ignored.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33405 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - I'll bite, trollbait.
Your news will certainly come as a huge surprise to the 620 million metric tons/sec hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion in the Sun right now.
Are you just trolling some piece of semantic sophistry, or do you really think you have some real point here?
Go ahead - let 'er rip, Einstein.
Come on. Can't you tell the sun is not a nuclear reaction but it has such.

Reaction is a technical term, e.g. chemical reaction.

By the way, you actually showed your true colors when you dropped the A in AGW in your reply to Fair Game.

Oh noes!

Here's the latest from PNAS, just acquired after another search:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...

.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

It's the A, it's the A,...
yes

Australia

#33406 Jan 4, 2013
yes
litesong

Everett, WA

#33407 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
..... you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#33408 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> Come on. Can't you tell the sun is not a nuclear reaction but it has such.
Reaction is a technical term, e.g. chemical reaction.
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.

(spits out bait)
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>By the way, you actually showed your true colors when you dropped the A in AGW in your reply to Fair Game. Here's the latest from PNAS, just acquired after another search:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...
.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
It's the A, it's the A,...
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.

I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.

Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.

The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?

In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33409 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Jealous, you are because you can NOT cut and paste.
You posted 2H, 3H, 4He, etc. Furthermore, you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
Clearly, you never took any science classes.
So after all days and days you finally admit you really really don't know. You only have cut and paste. Here is your cahnce to show your own work and prove the sun is not a nuclear reaction.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33410 Jan 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Nah.

thermonuclear reaction
n
(Physics / Nuclear Physics) a nuclear fusion reaction occurring at a very high temperature: responsible for the energy produced in the sun, nuclear weapons, and fusion reactors See nuclear fusion, hydrogen bomb
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thermonuclea...

Do you read "occurring at?"

A reaction occurs or takes place. Our sun is a star in its nuclear fusion phase.

It's wrong to call it a nuclear reaction. But you may call it a nuclear (or a fusion) reactor.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#33411 Jan 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).
Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isn’t.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33412 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.
(spits out bait)
<quoted text>
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
It just happens that scientists rely on definitions to communicate. It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.

Why don't you look up the words, reactor and reaction!

It was a big hook that caught you.

As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.

That hook is still hurting you, so it shows. You just wanted to be a denier on the sly.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33413 Jan 4, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isn’t.
Go find a hobby away from here.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33414 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Read from Wendler's paper:

In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.

See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33415 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.
You are welcome.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#33416 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text> It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.
Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.
More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.

Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.

I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.

If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#33417 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Read from Wendler's paper:
In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.
See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.
I understand that's your view, yes.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33418 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that's your view, yes.
No, you don't.

You are a biased bystander here.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33419 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...
<quoted text>
More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.
Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.
I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.
If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...
I reverse all the name calling back at you.

You have no idea about me. I don't care about your personal views.

You can't handle the science.
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#33420 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:

A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]

Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#33421 Jan 4, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:
A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]
Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.
Woh. Wiki?(shiver) No arguing with that - I must bow to the authority of Wiki. Nice shootin,' Tex - ya got me.

But - "name calling?" What "names" have I "called" you? Or anyone?

Oooooh. And I have "all the characteristics of a "DENIER!!!"

Just what are those characteristics, exactly? Did I not genuflect promptly enough when you tinkled your little jingle-bell? Did I not proclaim "AGW Akbar!!!" with sufficient vigor or something?

PLEEZE let me know - I SO want to be one of the Cool Kids in the AGW Club, Mr. Wizard!!!

/sarc

“Denying those who deny nature”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33422 Jan 4, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A spnaking by tina seems to be a common theme in your posts. A phudd phantasy.
Like how your post lack any facts to back your claims. Or how you refer to those who prove you wrong as liars.

It seems like you are the one who has naughty fantasies about being over my knee with me applying a paddle to your rear.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33423 Jan 4, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's any consolation, Teener, I don't think you're lying.
I think you're too stupid to know how to lie.
I think you need to think that. Otherwise you might have to consider that I am right and your mind is incapable of handling something like that.

Or as Jack Nickolas said in a Few Good Men,'You can't handle the truth'.

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton speaks in Orlando on her plan f... 2 hr T-REX 7
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr VetnorsGate 1,431,719
Donald Trump for President 6 hr USAsince1680 1
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 16 hr Murphey_Law 513,498
News Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School custodians... (May '09) 23 hr MrTripsOnTheory 191
News Viewer's Guide: Look for trust, temperament the... Sat Plum2662 2
looking for a old friend (Jan '13) Sat Nikkinicole1980 2

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages