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

Full story: Newsday 49,201
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38318 Aug 22, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you said you had no interest in the EPA's stance on renewable fuel standards. You were only interested in the "stationary". How else should I take your position, son?
I really still have no interest, but that little petition came along and I just couldn't resist. If I had known it was going to piss you off this much, I would have found a dozen more to sign. You're really pushing me to get involved, aren't you?

You guys are all the same; it's either black or white, no middle ground or compromise. When will you see the rainbow?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38319 Aug 22, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you still knocking heads with these global warming proselytizers?
Their faith is "science".
Oxymorons...
LOL
Go back to sleep.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38320 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail to understand or what you want to leave out is that the AGW hypothesis in no way ever predicted a 30-year pause or decrease in temperatures. In fact the 2007 IPCC report stated this for 2011-2030:
Climate models show warming averaged for 2011-2030 compared to 1980-1999 is between +0.64 and +0.69 with a range of only 0.05.
So obviously if we do cool, it is the sun that is outstripping CO2's ability to warm. That was NEVER expected. So how can you carry on with such a failed prediction and pretend like cooling never happened and doesn't change the science of AGW? If we do get a 30-year cooling period, it makes all previous predictions meaningless.
There is no "30-year pause or decrease in temperatures", only a decade of slower rise in surface temperatures, something that was *always* expected from time to time by the IPCC.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong of course.
(You're the clown, after all, not me.)
The first IPCC report made it quite clear that we didn't know enough about ocean circulation to make an absolute prediction of year-by-year temperatures:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The uncertainties that we can't predict have not altered the main prediction: decade upon decade warming.
The previous decade was warmer than the one before that.
kristy wrote:
Did they tell that to the policy makers? Did they tell that to the media? Did they tell that to the public?
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
They put it in the report in black and white.
It's called "writing".
Do you expect them to come and explain it to every clown on the planet?
You have to *read* it.
Apparently even having your noses rubbed in what the IPCC actually said won't stop liars like you repeating the same lie.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38321 Aug 22, 2013
Greenhouse gas emissions could offset a natural cooling trend or amplify a heating trend.“It could even mean the plausible worst-case scenario is worse than anything we’ve imagined,” Curry says.“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”

Her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago was on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. She continued that research for a decade while serving as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue and eventually Penn State.

How much did she mitigate of Arctic uncertainties?

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38322 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You guys are all the same; it's either black or white, no middle ground or compromise. When will you see the rainbow?
says the cave dweller who demands that man made climate change is settled science! LOL
Btw...it is more likely that earth will be hit by a two mile wide asteroid in the next 15 minutes than you ever agitating me. And you can quote me on that, son.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38323 Aug 22, 2013
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.

Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.

The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38324 Aug 22, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.
Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.
The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
Very good. Thanks for the link.

I posted above some about Professor Curry because there's a flare up again with her. I feel like talking to her in person.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38325 Aug 22, 2013
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.

NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Judith Curry drives a Prius, and is an admitted "light switch nazi".

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38326 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.
NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.
Judith Curry drives a Prius, and is an admitted "light switch nazi".
so....are you saying she's an honest variety of your team, son?

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38327 Aug 22, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
Every post in here by the deniers is an argument about terms of degrees in temp or someone's off beat idea on why we should discount the result of years of research. Electing to wait on even more years of research. In other-words delay what can't be delayed.
Not one of them even think about what the worse case scenario would be if they are wrong. So the life style that they are desperately clinging to right now would be so drastically changed that they will regret not putting panels on the roof or buying the smaller car or other energy saving measures. Only it will all be too late.
The real sceptics are the scientists not the trolls
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
LOL!!!!!
terms of degrees? your 'team' seems to predict them with horrible results.
years of results have been revised...revised....revised, and are still innacurate.
WHY CAN'T IT BE DELAYED???? NONE OF THE SHYT YOU PREDICT IS COMING TRUE!!!! I had more faith in the Maya calendar!!! LOL!!!
You, son, are clinging to a faith in your opinions.....nothing could be further from reality from where I stand.
buy your bike...buy your volt....live in a solar home. your opinions and beliefs are all your own. why do you demand everyone else buy into your unfounded faith??

it's all political pseudoscience. if you don't get the joke.....don't blame us who know better.

peace.

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38328 Aug 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Prof. Curry was on NPR a while ago. They explored her past, including that she was the main researcher who predicted that hurricanes would become more numerous and more intense.
NPR noted, as I did, that her most common answer was "I don't know." In the world of science, that can be a good thing or a bad thing.
too bad 'your scientists' didn't have the intellectual honesty she does.....unless they have bacon to go with the egg on their face on a near daily basis.

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38329 Aug 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "30-year pause or decrease in temperatures", only a decade of slower rise in surface temperatures, something that was *always* expected from time to time by the IPCC.
what's the difference in a pause or a slower rise....if it ain't rising?'hayseeds' want to know. speak to caveman's people on this!!

LOL
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38330 Aug 22, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>so....are you saying she's an honest variety of your team, son?
Don't call me "son", boy, I'm probably old enough to be your grandpa, and I could be.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38331 Aug 22, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Greenhouse gas emissions could offset a natural cooling trend or amplify a heating trend.“It could even mean the plausible worst-case scenario is worse than anything we’ve imagined,” Curry says.“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”
Her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago was on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. She continued that research for a decade while serving as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue and eventually Penn State.
How much did she mitigate of Arctic uncertainties?
Not much.

You could see here how she fluffs her one-dimensional model testing:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_JA...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38332 Aug 22, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This seems to exactly fit what we have seen in the past and what we are seeing now, as compared to the AGW hypothesis where they are always trying to explain why temperatures aren't rising as expected. It seems the do protest too much when it comes to the sun. They all came out of the woodwork on this one to protest. They get especially nasty. I think they realize that the sun has a larger effect on the climate than they want to admit.
Yes, it fits. And yes they all come out of the woodwork to protest. They believe, and nothing is harder to counter than belief. You can't do it with facts.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38333 Aug 22, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
You DO realize "you are talking about the nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind!"
-Frederick in Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein"
Fun Facts, what 97% of 'real scientists' want you to believe is that every driver you mentioned (PDO, AMO, La Niña, etc) are secondary to 50 molecules of Man made CO2.
Now really, is that really so hard to believe?
Let me think about it. lol
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38334 Aug 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "30-year pause or decrease in temperatures", only a decade of slower rise in surface temperatures, something that was *always* expected from time to time by the IPCC.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Apparently even having your noses rubbed in what the IPCC actually said won't stop liars like you repeating the same lie.
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?

Second, you posted this:

Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38335 Aug 23, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?
Second, you posted this:
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.
You are dense!
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38336 Aug 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dense!
Apparently its the Artic Ice that's very "dense", remember the stories over the spring about how it was young thin ice sure to melt away.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_e...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#38337 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region
I am not clear as to which scientific point you made that I have not addressed.
As to the two points above:
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century. This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al., 1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America. Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
There is also evidence that suggests there could be as many other MWP scholarly papers...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
And again there seems to be 'robust' evidence that there are scholorly papers that address SH proxies on this subject:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/62...
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science. Here, we present a high-resolution 10Be chronology of glacier fluctuations in New Zealand’s Southern Alps over the past 7000 years, including at least five events during the last millennium. The extents of glacier advances decreased from the middle to the late Holocene, in contrast with the Northern Hemisphere pattern. Several glacier advances occurred in New Zealand during classic northern warm periods. These findings point to the importance of regional driving and/or amplifying mechanisms. We suggest that atmospheric circulation changes in the southwest Pacific were one important factor in forcing high-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand."
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined... No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
As to your second point:
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....
Good luck.
-koolaid

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) 7 min Smart Alex 1,154,022
Jodi Arias: Does the state have the goods to co... (Mar '13) 24 min Mary NY 26,185
Has anyone ever had a new appliance fail multip... (Mar '12) 1 hr Cheyenne Autumn 9
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 1 hr Maryslamb_ 490,197
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 3 hr Murph 70,608
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 4 hr Vic 96,646
Busted 10 hr DJames181 7
Orlando Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:40 am PST

NBC Sports 6:40AM
Bortles: We showed the country who we are
NBC Sports11:45 AM
Just like old (sad) times: Buccaneers double-digit home underdogs vs. Packers
NBC Sports 1:39 PM
Young Jaguars piecing together key building blocks - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 8:19 PM
Ranking Packers' Best Wins over Buccaneers
Bleacher Report 9:00 AM
Start 'Em, Sit 'Em Week 16: Debating Difficult Fantasy Football Lineup Decisions