Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 61482 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.

litesong

Everett, WA

#40748 Oct 22, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
"24 Hours Of Reality" starts today at 1PM CDT. The theme this year is "The Cost of Carbon".
gcaveman1........ Thank you! Got the site already to view.
litesong

Everett, WA

#40750 Oct 22, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Doubling down......
"motheaten" dumbly doubles down its deadly indoctrinated denial of AGW.
litesong

Everett, WA

#40752 Oct 22, 2013
motheaten wrote:
gibberish
I love the pure & true tones of the LOON!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40753 Oct 22, 2013
For the benefit of mothballs who bagged my previous post here is the UN climate chief saying exactly the same thing.

Wildfires are "absolutely" linked to global warming and increasingly intense heatwaves, the UN climate chief has said, as bushfires burned out of control in Australia.

Figueres called for action to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"What we have seen are just introductions to the doom and gloom that we could be facing. But that's not the only scenario," she said.
"We could -- as humankind -- we could take vigorous action and we could have a very, very different scenario. That's a scenario that is worth examining.

"We have very little time," she added. "The important thing is that we still have time, although inasmuch as we delay, we are closing the window upon ourselves."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/1...
Obamacare is great

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40754 Oct 22, 2013
Global warming is REAL, you fool. Deal with it.
----------
Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves - more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves - less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4 million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.
Moreover, global warming will mostly increase temperatures during winter, at night and in cold places, making temperature differences less extreme.
Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme. But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity - less extreme. About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.
Drought is expected to increase in some regions while decreasing in others. Overall, the impact will probably be slightly more extreme. Likewise, sea levels will rise, which will mean more flooding of coastal structures - more extreme weather. The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output.
Hurricane wind speeds are likely to increase (more extreme), but the number of hurricanes is likely to decrease or hold steady (less extreme). The number of extra-tropical cyclones is likely to decline (less extreme).

“Purple haze all in my brain”

Level 3

Since: May 12

Cherry Hill, NJ

#40755 Oct 22, 2013
Obamacare is great wrote:
Global warming is REAL, you fool. Deal with it.
----------
Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves - more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves - less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4 million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.
Moreover, global warming will mostly increase temperatures during winter, at night and in cold places, making temperature differences less extreme.
Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme. But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity - less extreme. About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.
Drought is expected to increase in some regions while decreasing in others. Overall, the impact will probably be slightly more extreme. Likewise, sea levels will rise, which will mean more flooding of coastal structures - more extreme weather. The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output.
Hurricane wind speeds are likely to increase (more extreme), but the number of hurricanes is likely to decrease or hold steady (less extreme). The number of extra-tropical cyclones is likely to decline (less extreme).
Do you have Obamacare insurance Mr. weather man?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40758 Oct 22, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad to teach. I'm also glad that you don't understand what could save the re-pubic-lick-un party, as tea party termites hollow out the insides, & toxic topix AGW deniers, who are thrilled by their lack of education.
Not termites but maggots!
litesong

Everett, WA

#40759 Oct 22, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Smokey Bear says 9 of 10 wildfires caused by humans. Your report going back 150 years of western forest fires corresponds to US population growth, BUT you say it's global warming.
I say rubbish.
Hey, where's the gibberish?

Another take from the Arbor Day Foundation:
More than 83% of forest fires in 2006 were started by human activities, accounting for the burning of nearly 4.4 million acres. However, lightning-caused fires burned more total area – nearly 5.5 million acres.
//////////
Human caused lightning fires are often due to uncaring & fairly lazy humans who aren't deep in the forest & mountain wilds. Their particular fires are detected sooner, being closer to other humans. Lightning caused forest fires have high percentages, ignited in deep mountain & forest regions, go undetected for a greater time period than human caused fires & thus, much larger when finally engaged by fire fighters.

"motheaten" has known this........ but didn't say anything, except mis-directed gibberish.

......the pure true tones of the LOON.......
litesong

Everett, WA

#40760 Oct 22, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Not termites but maggots!
I thank you for your correction.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40761 Oct 22, 2013
The Quest for Clean Coal continues...

KEMPER COUNTY — Regulators say Mississippi Power Co. needs to submit more evidence that it has spent money prudently on the power plant it’s building in Kemper County.

The state Public Service Commission voted 3-0 yesterday to require more information from Mississippi Power on the $4.75 billion it is spending to build the coal-fueled power plant in eastern Mississippi. The Sierra Club, which opposes the plant, had asked commissioners to reject the spending by the subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Co.

Commissioners had planned to put off reviewing spending until the Kemper plant was finished, but agreed in a settlement with Mississippi Power to examine some costs earlier. Yesterday’s action sets the hearing for May 2014. That was supposed to be the month when the plant goes into commercial operation, but the company recently announced it wouldn’t meet that deadline. If the PSC rejects some of the spending as imprudent, it could add to the $1 billion in costs that shareholders have already agreed to absorb.

Tuesday’s order says the commission will assume spending was wise, but said the company must say more about how it managed spending. Regulators also want information on the differences between original cost estimates and current forecasts. The project, including a mine and pipelines, is more than $1.5 billion over budget from original estimates.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40763 Oct 23, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm... lets see... Smokey Bear says 9 of 10 wildfires caused by humans. Your report going back 150 years of western forest fires corresponds to US population growth, BUT you say it's global warming.
I say rubbish.
Regardless of how the fires start it's the weather that prevents a garden hose putting it out and turning into a catastrophic event.
When the weather turns out conditions that make a simple act of some moron throwing a cigarette butt out the window on the highway into a disaster, global warming contributes to that event. It's all about the frequency, not a growing population. When the frequency increases because conditions are turned out annually even outside the normal summer instead of a once in 10 yr event exactly the same as the hurricanes & floods. The graphs show that clearly
Susan

Fullerton, CA

#40765 Oct 23, 2013
Obamacare is great wrote:
Global warming is REAL, you fool. Deal with it.
----------
Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves - more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves - less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4 million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.
Moreover, global warming will mostly increase temperatures during winter, at night and in cold places, making temperature differences less extreme.
Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme. But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity - less extreme. About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.
Drought is expected to increase in some regions while decreasing in others. Overall, the impact will probably be slightly more extreme. Likewise, sea levels will rise, which will mean more flooding of coastal structures - more extreme weather. The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output.
Hurricane wind speeds are likely to increase (more extreme), but the number of hurricanes is likely to decrease or hold steady (less extreme). The number of extra-tropical cyclones is likely to decline (less extreme).
So true. So true.
Jimmyjack100

Eastwood, Australia

#40766 Oct 23, 2013
Sitting on the other side of the world to most of you guys,thinking the same thoughts and asking myself the same questions. But the only thing that keeps coming to mind is that things are definitely changing here. Forget what politicans or the scientific community want to tell us, I can work it out myself ,things are not right. We need to remove ourselfs from the conventional way of thinking and we need to take control of our own destinies . If we leave it in the hands of the power players they will lead us down a path that only benefits themselves." It's time to make a stand" humanity has to stand up for itself. The masses must make discussions for the masses ,not the self driven minority making the discions for everyone. Make your stand the time has come.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40767 Oct 23, 2013
Susan wrote:
<quoted text>
So true. So true.
Not true. More deaths result from heat waves than any other natural cause.
Reply

Corona Del Mar, CA

#40771 Oct 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. More deaths result from heat waves than any other natural cause.
The numbers aren't even close.

Four times more people die from excessive cold weather than die from excessive hot weather according to National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database 2005.

People move to hot climates for their health. lol

They retire in Palm Springs, not Alaska.
SpaceBlues

Dallas, TX

#40772 Oct 23, 2013
Reply wrote:
<quoted text>
The numbers aren't even close.
Four times more people die from excessive cold weather than die from excessive hot weather according to National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database 2005.
People move to hot climates for their health. lol
They retire in Palm Springs, not Alaska.
And they die there, duh.

Reply from AMS Journal: Studies, public reports, news reports, and Web sites cite a wide range of values associated with deaths resulting from excessive heat and excessive cold. For example, in the United States, the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data statistics of temperature- related deaths are skewed heavily toward heat-related deaths, while the National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database indicates the reverse—4 times more people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.” In this study, we address the fundamental differences in the various temperature-related mortality databases, assess their benefits and limitations, and offer suggestions as to their use. These datasets suffer from potential incompleteness of source information, long compilation times, limited quality control, and the subjective determination of a direct versus indirect cause of death. In general, these separate mortality datasets should not be combined or compared, particularly with regard to policy determination. The use of gross mortality numbers appears to be one of the best means of determining temperature-related mortality, but those data must be detrended into order to remove a persistent winter-dominant death maximum and are difficult to obtain on a regional daily basis.

P.S. Remember humans have lived mostly in the moderate and hot regions globally. Naturally, annual heat deaths are much more rationally speaking.
heavy tune

Seattle, WA

#40773 Oct 23, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>And they die there, duh.
Reply from AMS Journal: Studies, public reports, news reports, and Web sites cite a wide range of values associated with deaths resulting from excessive heat and excessive cold. For example, in the United States, the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data statistics of temperature- related deaths are skewed heavily toward heat-related deaths, while the National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database indicates the reverse—4 times more people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.” In this study, we address the fundamental differences in the various temperature-related mortality databases, assess their benefits and limitations, and offer suggestions as to their use. These datasets suffer from potential incompleteness of source information, long compilation times, limited quality control, and the subjective determination of a direct versus indirect cause of death. In general, these separate mortality datasets should not be combined or compared, particularly with regard to policy determination. The use of gross mortality numbers appears to be one of the best means of determining temperature-related mortality, but those data must be detrended into order to remove a persistent winter-dominant death maximum and are difficult to obtain on a regional daily basis.
P.S. Remember humans have lived mostly in the moderate and hot regions globally. Naturally, annual heat deaths are much more rationally speaking.
wow 'space' your the type of nutcase these global warming loons are looking for.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40774 Oct 23, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
In an article entitled,“The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note:
“Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
“From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves, according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of the Interior,” Singer and Avery write.“Cold spells, in other words, are twice as dangerous to our health as hot weather.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/19/some-fa...
see figure 1
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indi...
LOL.

wattsupwiththat quotes wiki.answers quotes Fred Singer, who took tobacco money for years to deny smoking kills, and now takes fossil fuel money to deny the risks of AGW.

Who needs peer reviewed science when you have a paper trail like that?
For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves.“The elderly die in inadequately heated homes. People get skull fractures from falls on the ice. Men die of heart attacks while shoveling snow. People get colds, flu, pneumonia and other respiratory diseases. Infectious diseases proliferate. Hospital admissions rise.” Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, concludes that since global warming would raise maximum summer temperatures modestly while raising winter minimum temperatures significantly, it “should help reduce human death rates.”

A team of Harvard researchers found otherwise. Their July 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Occupational and Environment Medicine, found that global warming is likely to cause more deaths in summer because of higher temperatures, but not fewer deaths in milder winters. In analyzing weather data related to the deaths of 6.5 million people in 50 American cities between 1989 and 2000, the researchers found that during two-day cold snaps there was a 1.59 percent increase in deaths because of the extreme temperatures. But in similar periods of extremely hot weather, mortality rates increased 5.74 percent.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
SpaceBlues

Dallas, TX

#40776 Oct 23, 2013
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>wow 'space' your the type of nutcase these global warming loons are looking for.
Hey kal..

Let's face it.. you did not comprehend my post as usual.. there's no more tina but you LOL.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40777 Oct 23, 2013
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>wow 'space' your the type of nutcase these global warming loons are looking for.
Hello ritedownthemiddl e.

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) 2 min Homer 1,432,430
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 2 hr zazz 98,199
3 word game (Jan '11) 12 hr Princess Hey 14,026
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 14 hr Princess Hey 13,072
New Game ***Last Word + 2 (Oct '11) 14 hr Princess Hey 12,708
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 14 hr Princess Hey 19,167
Donald Trump for President 16 hr Well Well 2

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages