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

Full story: Newsday 47,626
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

#35645 May 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Anybody listening to the science?
Climate science explains how global warming can make a superstorms like Sandy more destructive in several ways:
Warming-driven sea level rise makes storm surges more destructive. In fact, a recent study found “The sea level on a stretch of the US Atlantic coast that features the cities of New York, Norfolk and Boston is rising up to four times faster than the global average.”
“Owing to higher SSTs [sea surface temperatures] from human activities, the increased water vapor in the atmosphere leads to 5 to 10% more rainfall and increases the risk of flooding,” as Kevin Trenberth explained to me in a 2011 email about Hurricane Irene. He elaborates on that point for Sandy here and for all superstorms in this article.
“However, because water vapor and higher ocean temperatures help fuel the storm, it is likely to be more intense and bigger as well,” Trenberth added (see another of his articles here). Relatedly, warming also extends the range of warm SSTs, which can help sustain the strength of a hurricane as it steers on a northerly track into cooler water (much as apparently happened for Irene). September had the second highest global ocean temperatures on record and the Eastern seaboard was 5°F warmer than average (with global warming responsible for about 1°F of that).
The unusual path of the storm — into the heavily populated east coast rather than out to see — was caused by a very strong blocking high pressure system that recent studies have linked to warming. Meteorologist and former Hurricane Hunter Jeff Masters has an excellent analysis of this,“Why did Hurricane Sandy take such an unusual track into New Jersey?“
I have put these in order from most scientific certainty to least. The first two — the impact of sea level rise and increased water vapor — are unequivocal. The third is extremely likely. The fourth is more speculative.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/31/1...
You said this:

"You're still unable to grasp that the analysis of a single event might be different from the analysis of several years of events, demonstrating a laughable incompetence that shows how well you deserve to be called Krusty the clown."

So the analysis of Sandy is a single event, but the analysis of several years events could be different. You can't have it both ways. You lecture me that a drought event or a cold event not related to AGW really means nothing as it is a single event, but then you go into great detail about Sandy. Why? It's a single event.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35646 May 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You deniers keep trying to make circular arguments that never address the real issue. It's always some sideline comment that has no relevance. Putting a price on excess carbon emissions into clean air is no different than demanding clean water. Science has taught you by now that if we drink polluted water we die!
We have millions of years of that so called carbon pollution buried in the ground or locked in forests and we start releasing it all into the atmosphere in less than a couple of hundred years. At the same time reducing our planets natural resources by almost 40% to absorb that carbon back that we emit. You deniers keep saying that none of these cold hard facts would make any difference to our environment and even without any science involved plain and simple logic would tell you otherwise.
The idea of pricing carbon was to bring it into the capitalist system so that its traded like any other commodity. But if you only give it a token value then it is useless. Yes it involves pain in the economy but that is only until a new economy based on clean flourishes. Thats how we evolved from the horse n cart days into mechanisation. The blacksmiths, saddle makers, & wagon builders had to evolve into gas station owners, car makers or parts suppliers. It's exactly the same with green energy. Only the plus side vastly outweighs the negatives.
If you really stood hand on heart and swear that you want to base your entire denial process on the fact that science can't tell you that in 2yrs time on this day it will be raining in Washington as reason to dismiss all the other facts is a farce.
Excuse me...no circular argument here. You posted this:

"You might also want to look at the Wikipedia feature on climate change and agriculture. For instance one example like Pakistan might lose 50% of its cropping. I guess you guys would welcome these climate refugees with open arms considering they could not produce the food to feed themselves. It goes a lot further than just the weather."

I responded to your statement about "climate refugees." Bad climate policies are contributing more emissions and reducing our food supply. Bad climate policies should not be enacted just to look like we are doing something. Do you seriously think governments will take the extra revenue and use it wisely? In the UK, they charge an environmental tax to curb emissions. Now green research centers are having a hard time paying their bill to the government.

"Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cuts. "Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill," a senior scientist at the lab said. "We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ma...

So, tell me how there can be any kind of innovation in any sector if technology and research has to be cut in order to send in a tax payment. This tax trickles down to the entire economy and you want a global tax. How is that a good policy? And if you start exempting businesses it defeats the whole purpose and then it just becomes a political game of money changing hands. Cap and trade over in Europe is filled with fraud and waste.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#35647 May 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me...no circular argument here. You posted this:
"You might also want to look at the Wikipedia feature on climate change and agriculture. For instance one example like Pakistan might lose 50% of its cropping. I guess you guys would welcome these climate refugees with open arms considering they could not produce the food to feed themselves. It goes a lot further than just the weather."
I responded to your statement about "climate refugees." Bad climate policies are contributing more emissions and reducing our food supply. Bad climate policies should not be enacted just to look like we are doing something. Do you seriously think governments will take the extra revenue and use it wisely? In the UK, they charge an environmental tax to curb emissions. Now green research centers are having a hard time paying their bill to the government.
"Among the worst hit is the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire, a facility for research into almost limitless carbon-free energy. The lab faces an estimated £400,000 payment next year, raising the spectre of job losses and operational cuts. "Considering our research is aimed at producing zero-carbon energy, it seems ironic and perverse to clobber us with an extra bill," a senior scientist at the lab said. "We have to use electricity to run the machine and there is no way of getting around that."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/ma...
So, tell me how there can be any kind of innovation in any sector if technology and research has to be cut in order to send in a tax payment. This tax trickles down to the entire economy and you want a global tax. How is that a good policy? And if you start exempting businesses it defeats the whole purpose and then it just becomes a political game of money changing hands. Cap and trade over in Europe is filled with fraud and waste.
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35648 May 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
Agreed.

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/T5VR1PE013...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35649 May 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
We don't have a carbon tax. We don't have cap and trade. We didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Yet we have reduced our CO2 emissions to 1994 levels while the UK has increased theirs by 10%. What has been the biggest boost in reducing our emissions? The switch to natural gas...private enterprise supplying clean energy to the public, all without the passage of a carbon tax or cap and trade.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35650 May 7, 2013
krusty the clown wrote:
<quoted text>
You said this:
"You're still unable to grasp that the analysis of a single event might be different from the analysis of several years of events, demonstrating a laughable incompetence that shows how well you deserve to be called Krusty the clown."
So the analysis of Sandy is a single event, but the analysis of several years events could be different. You can't have it both ways. You lecture me that a drought event or a cold event not related to AGW really means nothing as it is a single event, but then you go into great detail about Sandy. Why? It's a single event.
Yes, you can, poopforbrains.

You can have evidence that a single event was influenced by AGW, no evidence that an event was influenced by AGW, or a debate over whether an event was influenced by AGW.

Then you can have a long term trend that becomes obvious whether or not it is possible to ascribe atribution .

Once again you have demonstrated inability to understand the subject and earned the name krusty the clown.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35651 May 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you can, poopforbrains.
You can have evidence that a single event was influenced by AGW, no evidence that an event was influenced by AGW, or a debate over whether an event was influenced by AGW.
Then you can have a long term trend that becomes obvious whether or not it is possible to ascribe atribution .
Once again you have demonstrated inability to understand the subject and earned the name krusty the clown.
But what if we are not being told the truth? What about public officials and scientists who have zero evidence that AGW is a factor in a weather event and then go out and issue warnings that it has everything to do with AGW.

My example was the 2010/2012 drought in the UK. A single event in which the Met office in FOIA emails stated this:

"Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts. There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate."

Now the right way to relay information to the public about the drought would have been an honest assessment of the drought and causes of the drought. But instead here is what the public heard from the Environmental Minister Lord Henley:

This Spring’s intense dry spell is a sign of things to come and water companies need to be prepared to avoid water shortages, Environment Minister Lord Henley warned today. The recent exceptionally dry weather is a snapshot of what we might expect from climate change. Our region is on the frontline in the fight against climate change, with less rain than the rest of the country, a fast growing population and large areas of land below sea level.

How can you have a debate about long-term trends if you have public officials linking single events to AGW without any evidence?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35652 May 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
But what if we are not being told the truth?.. How can you have a debate about long-term trends if you have public officials linking single events to AGW without any evidence?
There's no debate about science with you.

Start practising oncology now. LOL.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35653 May 7, 2013
krusty the clown wrote:
<quoted text>
But what if we are not being told the truth? What about public officials and scientists who have zero evidence that AGW is a factor in a weather event and then go out and issue warnings that it has everything to do with AGW.
My example was the 2010/2012 drought in the UK. A single event in which the Met office in FOIA emails stated this:
"Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts. There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate."
Now the right way to relay information to the public about the drought would have been an honest assessment of the drought and causes of the drought. But instead here is what the public heard from the Environmental Minister Lord Henley:
This Spring’s intense dry spell is a sign of things to come and water companies need to be prepared to avoid water shortages, Environment Minister Lord Henley warned today. The recent exceptionally dry weather is a snapshot of what we might expect from climate change. Our region is on the frontline in the fight against climate change, with less rain than the rest of the country, a fast growing population and large areas of land below sea level.
How can you have a debate about long-term trends if you have public officials linking single events to AGW without any evidence?
It is possible that there may not be evidence that a drought is caused by AGW, and yet the drought may be a example of things to come due to a long term trend for which for which there is strong evidence.

So, far from proving that scientists are issuing warnings without evidence, you have only demonstrated your own stupidity and incompetence to talk about science, and again earned the name krusty the clown.

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#35655 May 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>litesong doesn't address the issues, he prefers irrational ad hominem fallacies. Good luck getting him to engage.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

Level 1

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#35656 May 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Rogue made a comment that Exxon was not one of the top ten oil corporations then went on to make statements about profits. I was only showing that Exxon was in fact one of the top ten in profits. The rest of your meandering is off the subject. Go ahead and buy whatever you like. Be cognizant that we may be approaching the big bubble in carbon investments.
You did not answer the question. The question was NOT name the largest petroleum corporation in the world but the largest COMPANY.
The fact is the largest petroleum company is Gazprom owned by Russia. Number two is Aramco owned by Saudi Arabia. And the fat is Exxon-Mobil is the THIRTEENTH largest company.
Yes, Exxon-Mobil is the largest publicly traded corporation but there are still a dozen companies that are even larger and they are all owned by COUNTRIES.
How does it feel to be an ignorant bigot?
Oh, here is a Wiki piece based on petroleum RESERVES and Russia will not release it Reserves numbers, only it's PRODUCTION numbers.
Now, find Exxon on this list, if you can!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_indust...

Level 1

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#35657 May 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
Ah CO2 is plant food. Without CO2, everything dies!
Again, you have no idea what dihydrogen monoxide is! Oh, how about Ozone? Do you know what ozone is?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35658 May 7, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I'm all about the issue; another day without any test of climate change mitigation.

Use common sense; don't buy a pig in a poke.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35659 May 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>There's no debate about science with you.
Start practising oncology now. LOL.
Too funny, this coming from someone who denies the NOAA scientists' analysis that tornadoes have not increased in frequency or extremity.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35660 May 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It is possible that there may not be evidence that a drought is caused by AGW, and yet the drought may be a example of things to come due to a long term trend for which for which there is strong evidence.
So, far from proving that scientists are issuing warnings without evidence, you have only demonstrated your own stupidity and incompetence to talk about science, and again earned the name krusty the clown.
What long-term trend are you talking about? The models?

Level 1

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#35661 May 7, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have a carbon tax. We don't have cap and trade. We didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Yet we have reduced our CO2 emissions to 1994 levels while the UK has increased theirs by 10%. What has been the biggest boost in reducing our emissions? The switch to natural gas...private enterprise supplying clean energy to the public, all without the passage of a carbon tax or cap and trade.
What is funny is that they believe their own lies. Just look at Dr. James Hansen. Why did he retire last month? Did Climategate have anything to do with it?
And then the is Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State who think he can read tree rings. All tree rings tell you is whether of not the growing conditions are ideal. It will not tell you if it is too hot or cold, if it has the right amount of sunlight, moisture, nutrients, etc. But Dr. Mann thinks he knows.
Oh, the lower tropospheric temperatures have gone DOWN a half a degree centigrade in the past dozen years! WHY? Maybe it is because our Sun is taking a big cat nap? Yep, our Sun is at it's lowest power level in a hundred years and NASA-MSFC (not to be confused with NASA-GISS which is actually Columbia University) says they expect it to go down to the level is was 200 years ago during the Little Ice Age.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_...
But if you still believe in Global Warming might I suggest you move to Canada while there is still room. As for me, I will stay here in Florida where I will be warmer than you will be.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35662 May 7, 2013
Deniers are in full force, a dwindling force. When will they concede?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35663 May 7, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:
Ah CO2 is plant food. Without CO2, everything dies!
Again, you have no idea what dihydrogen monoxide is! Oh, how about Ozone? Do you know what ozone is?
Science is not expressed this way.

Isn't it nice that Topix allows you to publish this nonsense?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35664 May 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Too funny, this coming from someone who denies the NOAA scientists'..
LIAR.

Like I said, there's no debate about science with you. You don't comprehend even what you post.

You should give it up for oncology practice.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35665 May 7, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is obvious from past experience that any, any, environmental consideration must commence from government policy. No marketplace mechanism is inherent to limit environmental concerns. Folks will always move in the direction of economic profits-savings. To initiate some kind of mechanism to limit pollution and other environmental concerns there must be some kind of economic stimulus to change the market direction. We have seen this in such things as asbestos, benzene, lead, chlorofluorocarbons, insecticides, tobacco to name a very few. The industry always howls government interference but they will not change their habits until they are given some economic persuasion. For example, lead in gasoline was not voluntarily removed from gasoline. Industry waited until the very last moment. Benzene was not removed from the workplace until the very last moment by industry. Industry heavily lobbied for the repeal of every one of these items. Why would we think that regulation of CO2 to be any different?
<quoted text>
What is funny is that they believe their own lies. Just look at Dr. James Hansen. Why did he retire last month? Did Climategate have anything to do with it?
And then the is Dr. Michael Mann from Penn State who think he can read tree rings. All tree rings tell you is whether of not the growing conditions are ideal. It will not tell you if it is too hot or cold, if it has the right amount of sunlight, moisture, nutrients, etc. But Dr. Mann thinks he knows.
Oh, the lower tropospheric temperatures have gone DOWN a half a degree centigrade in the past dozen years! WHY? Maybe it is because our Sun is taking a big cat nap? Yep, our Sun is at it's lowest power level in a hundred years and NASA-MSFC (not to be confused with NASA-GISS which is actually Columbia University) says they expect it to go down to the level is was 200 years ago during the Little Ice Age.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_...
But if you still believe in Global Warming might I suggest you move to Canada while there is still room. As for me, I will stay here in Florida where I will be warmer than you will be.
LIAR.

You don't even know how to post your gossip. Join the other denier in her ficticious oncology practice. Give it up here.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Yeah 1,130,084
Alphabet Game (Apr '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 9,130
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 3 hr zazz 96,531
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 3 hr Murphey_Law 488,960
Change one letter game (Sep '11) 5 hr Tiburon Girl 2,559
orlando sentinel redesign sucks!!!!!!!! (Jul '09) 5 hr kingratrick 54
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 6 hr Tiburon Girl 11,970

Fire Warning for Orange County was issued at November 01 at 1:30AM EDT

Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]