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 (Page 1,813)

Showing posts 36,241 - 36,260 of42,928
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38565
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>uhhhh, sorry to chime in on your "recovery summer", dude, but crude oil made a 2 year high today! Rbob gasoline is up 33 cents since August 8.
Sorry, Charlie, regular is down $.22 from a year ago (US average).

All regions except the Rocky Mountains are down from $.04 to $0.29 from this time last year.

There's a line graph on the page too, in case you can't read decimals.

http://www.google.com/url...

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38566
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Charlie, regular is down $.22 from a year ago (US average).
All regions except the Rocky Mountains are down from $.04 to $0.29 from this time last year.
There's a line graph on the page too, in case you can't read decimals.
http://www.google.com/url...
lol
You said lately....then compare yr/yr prices.
What I said is FACTUAL, son.
If you're going to thank Obama for lower gas prices, fine!! His economic policies have put a drain on domestic growth...thus lowering gasoline demand over the longer term. So...I agree with you. But gasoline had been going up " lately"....and that's a fact, too.
dont drink the koolaid

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38567
Aug 28, 2013
 
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What is it with warmists and their authority figures?
When their "science" was found wanting, did they take their lumps and admit error? Nope. They found higher authorities, "climate scientists".
And then when the "science" of the climate scientists was found wanting, they upped the ante to "peer review and published climate scientists".
And having topped out on the "authorities" of their own science, did they accept it? Nope, again. They run off to find "scientists" in other fields to suggest that it's not their theories that are flawed, but rather, it's because people are flawed.
Sheesh.
Some people cannot be taught, refuse to learn, adapt and live with reality-- they're the true believers...the warmists.
A textbook example of a secular belief turning into theological faith.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38568
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
...
And then when the "science" of the climate scientists was found wanting, they upped the ante to "peer review and published climate scientists".
...
Gee, too bad that those old wicked scientists don't just listen to the real information. That is the good stuff that Fox and friends and the learned Senato Inholfe dish out. LOL.

Just where should one get their information if not fom the science???

Looks to me like we have found the real religious folks. The ones who work off of beliefs instead of science, reverend.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38569
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, too bad that those old wicked scientists don't just listen to the real information. That is the good stuff that Fox and friends and the learned Senato Inholfe dish out. LOL.
Just where should one get their information if not fom the science???
Looks to me like we have found the real religious folks. The ones who work off of beliefs instead of science, reverend.
Sheesh... and now the, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." defense.

Grow up.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38570
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
A textbook example of a secular belief turning into theological faith.
But a pretty empty faith as their dire predictions only create lifestyle changes for 'everybody else'.

Perhaps if each and every alarmist were actually living as if earth were on the precipice of disaster, folks might think the actually 'believe' their own "science".

And no, Al Gore buying carbon credits from himself doesn't cut it.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38571
Aug 28, 2013
 
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>lol
You said lately....then compare yr/yr prices.
What I said is FACTUAL, son.
If you're going to thank Obama for lower gas prices, fine!! His economic policies have put a drain on domestic growth...thus lowering gasoline demand over the longer term. So...I agree with you. But gasoline had been going up " lately"....and that's a fact, too.
Damn, you CAN'T read decimals.

One region, PADD2, up $0.023 last week; the rest of the country, down or very negligibly up.

Your gas facts are like your climate facts...laughable.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38572
Aug 28, 2013
 
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh... and now the, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." defense.
Grow up.
Yeah, let me add to that. You're a scaredy-cat. Climate change terrifies you. Any kind of change frightens the hell out of you.

But you'll get over it when you start saving so much money by going solar.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38573
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, let me add to that. You're a scaredy-cat. Climate change terrifies you. Any kind of change frightens the hell out of you.
But you'll get over it when you start saving so much money by going solar.
Oh look, one of the devoted.

Please do tell us of all the lifestyle changes you've adopted in recognition of your faith.

How does that compare to all your gloom and doom leaders, you know the "scientists"? Do provide evidence.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38574
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, one of the devoted.
More empty rhetoric. The science posters here are less 'devoted' than the denialists. The science gives on a basis for comment, while the denialists have to go on emotional responses.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do tell us of all the lifestyle changes you've adopted in recognition of your faith.
Most adaptations to a more sustainable economy are relatively painless. i.e buying a 60 mpg car instead of a 5 mpg land yatch. With fins. LED lights provide just as much light but only 20% of the emissions. Wind farms hurt me not a bit.

My lifestyle includes a bicycle but that is a personal choice. I do not recommend it to others. For me, it is healthy exercise and mobility I cannot get by being stuck in traffic.. etc.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that compare to all your gloom and doom leaders, you know the "scientists"?
Science does not provide any 'valuation'. It states facts and the risks associated with them. If you want to walk off that cliff, they will NOT stop you.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Do provide evidence.
There is massive data on the problem and on it's solutions. You should do your own research.. if you can find a library.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38575
Aug 28, 2013
 
A possible way to continue burning fossil fuel, harvesting the waste CO2 and generating more electricity.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/waste-co2 -...

OF COURSE, this would take investment, research, trial-and-error, and will, to test.

One group that should be interested in pursuing this, and has the funds for R&D, is the fossil fuel industry itself.

A pipe dream, perhaps, but many things have started as pipe dreams.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38576
Aug 28, 2013
 
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheesh... and now the, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." defense.
Grow up.
I recall something about glass houses and I am not talking about greenhouses....

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38577
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
But a pretty empty faith as their dire predictions only create lifestyle changes for 'everybody else'.
Perhaps if each and every alarmist were actually living as if earth were on the precipice of disaster, folks might think the actually 'believe' their own "science".
And no, Al Gore buying carbon credits from himself doesn't cut it.
Who cares what Al Gore does? Nice cop out. Mommy why do I have to do it,everybody else is not....

It would be like telling folks to quit using freon because it is bad. It did not happen that way. It takes a social action, not sporadic individual action. That is why we must have governments.

What we need is a concerted change brought about by evidence and planning. You folks have been brainwashed into believing that any government action is socialism and exists only to take your freedoms away. That is propaganda supported by the industry to take your freedoms away so they can extort more from the unworthy. All one needs to do is to study the flow of money. Unless you are of the privileged class, chances are that you have lost wealth while those with the means have gained. Try to get around that. Of course the only defense is to say that that is a liberal plot to destroy capitalism. That regulation is taking away your opportunity instead of protecting your well being. Oh well, some folks are just gullible and uninformed and must get their information from Fox and friends.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38578
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what Al Gore does? Nice cop out. Mommy why do I have to do it,everybody else is not....
It would be like telling folks to quit using freon because it is bad. It did not happen that way. It takes a social action, not sporadic individual action. That is why we must have governments.
What we need is a concerted change brought about by evidence and planning. You folks have been brainwashed into believing that any government action is socialism and exists only to take your freedoms away. That is propaganda supported by the industry to take your freedoms away so they can extort more from the unworthy. All one needs to do is to study the flow of money. Unless you are of the privileged class, chances are that you have lost wealth while those with the means have gained. Try to get around that. Of course the only defense is to say that that is a liberal plot to destroy capitalism. That regulation is taking away your opportunity instead of protecting your well being. Oh well, some folks are just gullible and uninformed and must get their information from Fox and friends.
I think your cop out was much better.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38579
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, one of the devoted.
Please do tell us of all the lifestyle changes you've adopted in recognition of your faith.
How does that compare to all your gloom and doom leaders, you know the "scientists"? Do provide evidence.
Let’s make it clear before I begin that my faith is in science, and not in Rush Limburger or Faux Noos.

What deniers may consider sacrifices, I consider privileges and duties. My mother raised me to be moral, and my father taught me honesty. I'm Southern.

I believe in the power of the individual.

I live in a superinsulated, white, passive solar house of moderate size. I have a solar water pre-heater. Solar energy covers, conservatively, 60% of my heating needs. Every light bulb in the house is florescent. Two 8000 Btu window AC’s cool the whole house, sometimes too much. Sometimes the house can overheat a little. In the winter. So I pull the shades down. I'm toying with the idea of building my own windmill, like the 14-year-old in Malawi did. I'm pricing PV panels.

With my CFL’s, my garden, and my belief in the power of the individual, I have already changed the world. I’ve been doing it for decades. I didn’t have to adopt any changes. I didn’t have to change. I’ve always been this way.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38580
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Never could understand why they started naming hurricanes after men. They were apply named after women for years. There is nothing like the fury of women.
Scientifically, the more energy in the atmosphere, the more violent the storms....
LOL..true about the fury of us women.

There is no scientific evidence for more violent storms. From the IPCC SREX 2012:

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38581
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I get it.Even though the temperature increase is within the margin of error presented in the model the model is still wrong. It took me a while to wrap my head around that piece of "logic".
Try to grasp the logic. Again, we are at worst case scenario:

In 2007, the IPCC predicted a ‘worst-case scenario’ that would see rapid industrialisation cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by two parts per million each year. Parts per million (ppm) is a unit of concentration used to measure pollutants. Brierley said atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 385 ppm last year [2008] and was now rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year...[In] 2007 [the IPCC] made a series of forecasts and if you take the worst-case scenario, carbon dioxide would be going up by two parts per million [worst-case scenario of 2 ppm annual increase in CO2]. This really august body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said these are the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide increase and we are above that already.

The link you provided didn't use the correct SRES scenario. They used A2 and should have used A1F1 (worst case).

The prediction for scenario A1FI is: Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F). which would be 0.24 C per decade for the lowest prediction and the best estimate would be 0.4 C per decade. Observed warming 0.06 C. So the IPCC is totally off on its prediction.

Either way, 0.06 is in no way alarming.

There is a new paper out regarding climate models and their overestimation of temperatures:

Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.

Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. The divergence between observed and CMIP5- simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012.

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.[S]uch an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012. In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38582
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what Al Gore does? Nice cop out. Mommy why do I have to do it,everybody else is not....
Now didn't you read the link earlier about climate change denialism? If you had read it, you would know that it does matter what Al Gore does. Because you see one of the problems of denialism is,‘I’m only one person, what can I do?" and for many, the first challenge will be in recognizing which dragons they have to deal with before they can overcome them. Yet this approach can only work if people are prepared to acknowledge that they have a problem. But for those of us who understand that climate change is a problem yet make little effort to cut the number of overseas trips we make or the amount of meat we consume, neither apathy nor denial really explains the dissonance between our actions and beliefs. Lertzman has come to the conclusion that this is not because of apathy — a lack of feeling — but because of the simple fact that we care an overwhelming amount about both the planet and our way of life, and we find that conflict too painful to bear. Our apparent apathy is just a defense mechanism in the face of this psychic pain.

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-...

So you see Al is in psychic pain and I guess it wouldn't be so bad if he was the only one flying around in private jets and riding around in limos and not cutting his overseas trips, but there are thousands and thousands of Al Gores, so it does add up. In Copenhagen, these thousands of Al Gores came via 140 private jets, and unknown number of commercial jets, and used 1200 limos. They do this every year and that's only counting that 1 yearly conference and not all the other conferences they all fly around to all year round.

So I'm just wondering when caveman will be starting his petition asking that these yearly climate conferences be stopped and asking these climate change activists to cut down on their overseas trips and to please use public transportation instead of private gas guzzling limos.

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Kailua, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38583
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.[S]uch an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012. In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level.
OK. The IPCC consensus style models have problems.

The fine Nature analysis of John Fyfe, Nathan Gillett, and Francis Zwiers strikingly illuminates the distinction between weak, mediocre, and strong climate-change science:

&#9655; Weak Climate Science Purely statistical models that presuppose the existence of “cycles”(commonly solar cycles and/or ocean-current cycles); also ad hoc models that ascribe climate-change to (e.g.) fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity. In summary, speculative climate-change science.

&#9655; Mediocre Climate Science Massive computer models, in particular, models that attempt to model decadal-scale dynamics. In summary, IPCC-style committee-consensus climate-change science.

&#9655; Best Available Climate Science Derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and increase of entropy, as instantiated by radiation transport theory, as calculated by slide-rule, and as affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance. In summary, the multi-decadal arc of Hansen-style climate change science.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4846

Conclusion: Because the Fyfe/Gillett/Zwiers article narrowly confines its critique to mediocre varieties of climate-change science, their conclusions perforce are utterly silent in regard to the crucial question “When will global measures of energy imbalance stop accelerating?“

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Le...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr...

That's the main problem. There is a large energy imbalance that is accelerating. Right now the energy is being absorbed by the ocean. Conservation of energy means that the energy will be transferred into the atmosphere at some point in time. There is no denying that air temperatures since the 1880s have seen periods of increase and periods of decrease, but the overall trend is up. It is the overall trend that really matters the most.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38584
Aug 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to grasp the logic. Again, we are at worst case scenario:
In 2007, the IPCC predicted a ‘worst-case scenario’ that would see rapid industrialisation cause carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase by two parts per million each year. Parts per million (ppm) is a unit of concentration used to measure pollutants. Brierley said atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm to 385 ppm last year [2008] and was now rising at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year...[In] 2007 [the IPCC] made a series of forecasts and if you take the worst-case scenario, carbon dioxide would be going up by two parts per million [worst-case scenario of 2 ppm annual increase in CO2]. This really august body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said these are the worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide increase and we are above that already.
The link you provided didn't use the correct SRES scenario. They used A2 and should have used A1F1 (worst case).
The prediction for scenario A1FI is: Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F). which would be 0.24 C per decade for the lowest prediction and the best estimate would be 0.4 C per decade. Observed warming 0.06 C. So the IPCC is totally off on its prediction.
Either way, 0.06 is in no way alarming.
There is a new paper out regarding climate models and their overestimation of temperatures:
Fyfe, Gillett and Zwiers: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval). This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. By averaging simulated temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. The divergence between observed and CMIP5- simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012.
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.[S]uch an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012. In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level.
krusty the kut 'n past kween.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimat...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 36,241 - 36,260 of42,928
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

39 Users are viewing the Orlando Forum right now

Search the Orlando Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min GOPidiots 1,033,588
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 46 min BREND 478,225
two words (Jul '10) 1 hr Princess Hey 26,727
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 11,789
Curse of the OJ lawyers (Jul '11) 2 hr Squincher 10
2010 Florida Governor Race Election Results a "... (Nov '10) 2 hr True Words 2,616
New Game ***Last Word + 2 (Oct '11) 3 hr Princess Hey 11,835
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 7 hr RaceCityUsa 17,324
•••
•••
•••
•••

Orlando Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••