Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62314 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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#35176 Apr 16, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
"Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions."
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."
"exposed gaps in their understanding??!!"
"most climate models failed to predict??!!"
HERESY!! The models are PERFECT! The SCIENCE IS SETTLED - there are no possible "gaps" in climate scientists' understanding!!
This must not stand! Send out the Spanish Inquisition!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-...
Actually, we SHOULD be cooling now given the deep solar minimum in 2009 (& the expected long solar cycle now, before cycling back to solar max sometime after 2021), Chinese pollution releasing reflective aerosols, & La Niña conditions. But we're not cooling; at MOST we're continuing to warm, but at less statistically significant rates.

The sun & El Niño WILL cycle back, & warming will be faster than ever. The Chinese are preparing to pass anti-pollution laws; their party leaders have to try to breathe the air in Beijing also, after all. Aerosols will decline & warming will speed up, just like what happened to us in the 1970s after we passed anti-pollution laws.

So the people who are arguing now that "warming has stopped" are just deluding themselves, & trying to delude the rest of us. It will only work on the gullible.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#35177 Apr 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we SHOULD be cooling now given the deep solar minimum in 2009 (& the expected long solar cycle now, before cycling back to solar max sometime after 2021), Chinese pollution releasing reflective aerosols, & La Niña conditions. But we're not cooling; at MOST we're continuing to warm, but at less statistically significant rates.
The sun & El Niño WILL cycle back, & warming will be faster than ever. The Chinese are preparing to pass anti-pollution laws; their party leaders have to try to breathe the air in Beijing also, after all. Aerosols will decline & warming will speed up, just like what happened to us in the 1970s after we passed anti-pollution laws.
So the people who are arguing now that "warming has stopped" are just deluding themselves, & trying to delude the rest of us. It will only work on the gullible.
That is a quit sobering. Hopefully the cooling caused by the Sun etc. will give us time to get a handle on climate change.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35178 Apr 16, 2013
The Iron Dictator wrote:
Global Warning is Jewish-Globalist Mith.
UN-George Soros lies..........
Mith? Were you trying for meth? Revenge of the Sith? go bac 2 skool, ediot.

Iron Dictator? Some insecurity problems, Adolf? The little pee-pee won't stand up?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35179 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
As explained, I understand.
(As an aside, I would be very interested in the source of your "1.5" factor - from what authority do you obtain that value? Also, I don't disagree with anything in the article you linked - other than it's the same basic hand-wringing article that's been written for the past century or more - no news).........
Concern for careful and sustainable management of natural resources is valid. Crepe-hanging jeremiads of a doomed future and blaming "capitalism" is not.
If you don't trust this site then google your own. There are 1000's saying exactly the same thing.
Capitalism is a driving force in this over consumption, as it needs growth like pyramid selling scams to keep working. It's never about sustainability. However no one expects the "Star Trek" concept with no country borders and no money in a combined planet culture. That is fantasy land but at some point the brakes have to be applied to unchecked growth.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35180 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
"Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions."
"Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon."
"exposed gaps in their understanding??!!"
"most climate models failed to predict??!!"
HERESY!! The models are PERFECT! The SCIENCE IS SETTLED - there are no possible "gaps" in climate scientists' understanding!!
This must not stand! Send out the Spanish Inquisition!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-...
Reuters Ignores Its Own Accurate Reporting On Rapid Warming Of Oceans

Reuters Also Struggles To Find Climate Scientists Who Have Become Less Worried About Climate Change, So They Quote Bjorn Lomborg!

Why are so many climatologists now speaking out about global warming? As Lonnie Thompson explained a couple of years ago,“Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.”

But you’d never know how increasingly concerned climate scientists have become from reading Reuters’ absurdly-headlined piece,“Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown.” Amazingly, the piece doesn’t actually quote a single climate scientist struggling to explain this “slowdown”— perhaps because it doesn’t exist (see ”Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms“).

Even more amazingly, by which I mean, even more likely to cause your head to explode, the same Reuters reporter reported on new studies of ocean warming just last week in an article headlined,“Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35181 Apr 17, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
I see no reason to go any further if you're too damn stupid or dishonest to admit that climatology uses and continues to improve predictive modelling.[URL deleted] Jesus. You're such a waste of time, troll.
Tha Professor edited my arguments; what's up with that? Maybe, I don't use insults or defame my political opponents, not used to reason?

Predictive modeling works great when experiments reconcile model forces against real world forces. Where there are no experimental tests, you've only got a theory rendered into algorithm.

Your watch is a good model for measuring time, because it's been experimentally tested. There's no experiments supporting climate predictive modeling.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35182 Apr 17, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Send for the front-end loader, Teddy just dropped a big load of manure.
No need to send for anything for the Perfesser here - he just dropped a content-free load of NOTHING.

Deny.
Deflect.
Ridicule.

The classic response of the useless "me too" tool.

Ad hom. That's all he's got. Completely unequipped to engage on content of the article.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35183 Apr 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello!
The line on the right is higher than the line on the left!
That means temperatures have gone up and are not flat!
Can't you halfwits even read a graph?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from...
Why are we choosing to cherrypick some low signal-to-noise ratio proxy measure here (tree rings) instead of going straight to the direct T data?

Hmmmm?
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35184 Apr 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate models predict that temperature rise will slow from time to time, they are just not very good at predicting when:
http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-wa...
The models also say that in the long term it doesn't matter much:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-w...
So the models are not perfect, and are incomplete.

Got it.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35185 Apr 17, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, we SHOULD be cooling now given the deep solar minimum in 2009 (& the expected long solar cycle now, before cycling back to solar max sometime after 2021), Chinese pollution releasing reflective aerosols, & La Niña conditions. But we're not cooling; at MOST we're continuing to warm, but at less statistically significant rates.
If so obvious, then why did the much-vaunted models upon which you wish everyone to lavish such unquestioning faith not predict this?

Could it be that our knowledge, and these models are, oh, I don't know - INCOMPLETE?
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35186 Apr 17, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't trust this site then google your own. There are 1000's saying exactly the same thing.
Capitalism is a driving force in this over consumption, as it needs growth like pyramid selling scams to keep working. It's never about sustainability. However no one expects the "Star Trek" concept with no country borders and no money in a combined planet culture. That is fantasy land but at some point the brakes have to be applied to unchecked growth.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/...
Careful - your anti-capitalist anti-free-market commie central control-freak ideological skirts are showing. And on a thread that's all about THE SCIENCE!!

No political ideology here, no sir ... pay no attention to the raving commie behind the curtain ...

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35187 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are we choosing to cherrypick some low signal-to-noise ratio proxy measure here (tree rings) instead of going straight to the direct T data?
Hmmmm?
These are thermometer data, pops. Put your specs on and look again.
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35188 Apr 17, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

Amazingly, the piece doesn’t actually quote a single climate scientist struggling to explain this “slowdown”— perhaps because it doesn’t exist (see ”Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years, New Study Of Oceans Confirms“).
Or perhaps, more obviously, because climate scientists ON BOTH SIDES of the AGW Jihad simply don't know and have no explanation yet that will pass peer review muster.

Imagine - it turns out the science isn't actually settled ...
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Even more amazingly, by which I mean, even more likely to cause your head to explode, the same Reuters reporter reported on new studies of ocean warming just last week in an article headlined,“Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study“!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1...
Which he also mentions as a potential explanation in this piece. No contradiction whatsoever.

Weak, FG - you're really strucggling more than usual here ...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35189 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
So the models are not perfect, and are incomplete.
Got it.
The models don't predict decadal variation in ocean circulation.

Relevance to what's going to happen in a century, zero.

Got it?
Teddy R

San Francisco, CA

#35190 Apr 17, 2013
*struggling

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35191 Apr 17, 2013
The predictions for tomorrow are terrible but the predictions for 100 years in the future are spot on.

Amazing! Now, we'll just wait the next century and see.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35192 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Or perhaps, more obviously, because climate scientists ON BOTH SIDES of the AGW Jihad simply don't know and have no explanation yet that will pass peer review muster.
Imagine - it turns out the science isn't actually settled ...
Wrong.

If you'd been paying attention, you would know that several explanations have been put forward:

*Aerosols from Chinese pollution.
*Aerosols from volcanic activity.
*Heat entering the deep ocean.
*Climate sensitivity was overestimated.

The first three are temporary and will turn around leading to more warming. The fourth is contentious, because it could just be the first three factors reducing warming.

So you have two sides: those who think long term predictions are still valid, and those who think long term predictions need to be revised down a bit.

It is of course a straw man that the science was settled. The important point to note that there is not one side of the debate that thinks action on AGW is unnecessary: even the scientists who think predictions need to be revised down say we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we need to cut emissions.
<quoted text>
Which he also mentions as a potential explanation in this piece. No contradiction whatsoever.
Pretty dumb article to suggest that science is struggling to find an explanation and mention the explanations science has suggested in the fourth paragraph then.
Weak, FG - you're really strucggling more than usual here ...
Nice try at trolling pops. No struggle for you to cut and paste some foolish arguments without troubling your grey cells in examining them as usual.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35193 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
*struggling
The ocean suck up heat for a decade or so, then put it out for a decade of so, meaning temperatures can be cooler or warmer than expected.

The change is stochastic so can't be predicted by the models.

http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-wa...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35194 Apr 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The predictions for tomorrow are terrible but the predictions for 100 years in the future are spot on.
Amazing! Now, we'll just wait the next century and see.
No, you'll just leave it to your grandchildren to see.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35195 Apr 17, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
If so obvious, then why did the much-vaunted models upon which you wish everyone to lavish such unquestioning faith not predict this?
Could it be that our knowledge, and these models are, oh, I don't know - INCOMPLETE?
That's correct.

The models can't predict changes in ocean circulation patterns, and probably never will.

But in the long term, the trend is visible above the random fluctuations.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/what-w...

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min Grey Ghost 1,458,234
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 8 hr YIM 7,942
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 12 hr Murphey_Law 512,863
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 15 hr Maggie McGee 73,748
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 16 hr zazz 98,271
News Hollywood hospital administrator quits after li... (Jul '08) 21 hr Catpeople 268
News Should men wear pantyhose for warmth? It's not ... (Jan '09) Sat TRUMANS Treason 234

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages