Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 62303 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.

Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42337 Jan 1, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
Like I said in the deniers world let the grandchildren fry, we don't care we wont be around.
The Herald in Scotland Wednesday 1 January 2014
----------
Global temperatures could increase by up to 5°C by 2100, according to a study that suggests the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.
By 2200, the world could be 8°C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, say scientists.
The study corrected errors in calculating the effect of clouds on global warming.
Lead scientist Professor Steven Sherwood said: "Sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, but what we are finding is the mistakes are being made by models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."
So climate models that made less dire predictions are actually more inaccurate than the ones that make more extreme predictions even though none of them are actually right?

Yikes!

This is science?

The sky is falling! And faster than we thought!
SpaceBlues

United States

#42338 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to take everyone with a grain of salt...I'm a skeptic.
There are people saying we've passed the tipping point and that we may be extinct in 200 years.
I'm hoping they are not right.
Unfortunately: "There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

When changes are noticed by the public while happening, it's too late like a burning house.

P.S. A happy and healthy 2014!
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42339 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So climate models that made less dire predictions are actually more inaccurate than the ones that make more extreme predictions even though none of them are actually right?
Yikes!
This is science?
The sky is falling! And faster than we thought!
The article is referring to the basic physical processes that determine how much warming will occur over century periods.

Not the processes that determine how much warming will occur over decadal period.

Processes that incidentally the models do capture but not predict well over short periods.

A not so subtle distinction that is obviously invisible to an ignorant lout like you.

Do us favour: go and comment on a subject you do have a clue about.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42340 Jan 1, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The article is referring to the basic physical processes that determine how much warming will occur over century periods.
Not the processes that determine how much warming will occur over decadal period.
Processes that incidentally the models do capture but not predict well over short periods.
A not so subtle distinction that is obviously invisible to an ignorant lout like you.
Do us favour: go and comment on a subject you do have a clue about.
Curious.... he doesn't make distinction made between decadal vs. century predictions, but you've found it!

Abstract:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n74...

Oh wait! He does say that research has been going on for decades, but that doesn't jive with your assertion, does it?

Bottom line, is this "model" says all the other "models" are wrong.

So you've been citing sources with wrong models in the past, yet still insist they were right (at the time), and because of this study, more so?

Yikes!

Put the cart before the horse and prove it won't pull it.

“Every day, Improve..”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42341 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you actually researched this subject or are you just swallowing the Hannity/Beck/Watts line?
Other than yourself, are there any other authorities you can cite to prove any of the above? Or are you just another blathering idiot on the Internets?
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here. Just like the earth is round and the sun shines. Everything I have said is something a nine year old can understand.

The arrogant snobbish carbon-bilking elite would never display anything like this.

Anyways, let's return to reality and not your corporate fiction.

Headlines today:

*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.

*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.

*Global warming on ice

*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.

*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.

My God, you liberals are so FUNNY! This new year is starting with more madness on steroids displayed by you globalist worshippers. How is it going with activism against China or Russia you fools? Typical to whine, but not dare to challenge the ones who REALLY burn fossil fuels.

Now, if the blizzard lasts, these fools may get an American super-duper "carbon generating" ice breaker, or even better a NUCLEAR one. That should give half the libs on that shop a stroke..

Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh

LMAOROFL, this is too funny...

“Every day, Improve..”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42342 Jan 1, 2014
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a war on coal because its cheap and abundant.
Certain people want to have the monopoly on energy and Obama is their slick salesman.
Correct my friend.. This IS the penultimate reason the "liberal" fascists want to control this. This is also why statist creep like tolls, gas taxes, car taxes and ticketing, because they know how this limits people's freedoms.

Fortunately, I know hundreds of people getting just as awake as me and you, my friend. The international fraudsters and liars that are trying to destroy us all will never stop trying, so let's stick together. There is no more war on coals than there is war on poverty . Only slogans from liberals to destroy people and enslave us all within their corporate abyss.

Too bad these people always can count on 30-40% of pure takers to run and vote for them, by promising to rip off the rest of us. Whether you make 200 or 10 bucks an hour, we are all dupees in this world of globalist liars and their mindless zombie cohorts.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42343 Jan 1, 2014
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here. Just like the earth is round and the sun shines. Everything I have said is something a nine year old can understand.
The arrogant snobbish carbon-bilking elite would never display anything like this.
Anyways, let's return to reality and not your corporate fiction.
Headlines today:
*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.
*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.
*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.
My God, you liberals are so FUNNY! This new year is starting with more madness on steroids displayed by you globalist worshippers. How is it going with activism against China or Russia you fools? Typical to whine, but not dare to challenge the ones who REALLY burn fossil fuels.
Now, if the blizzard lasts, these fools may get an American super-duper "carbon generating" ice breaker, or even better a NUCLEAR one. That should give half the libs on that shop a stroke..
Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh
LMAOROFL, this is too funny...
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
litesong

Everett, WA

#42344 Jan 1, 2014
rotten vegetable tiger wrote:
*..... ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
* stuck in ice.
AGW scientists predicted Antarctic sea ice would increase in 2002, re-confirmed in 2005, & has occurred, as toxic topix AGW deniers like to point out, as if it wasn't an AGW scientific prediction.

You forgot the statement, "...Arctic sea ice has recovered by 60%" after the 2012 Arctic sea ice low record, of which toxic topix AGW deniers gloat that 2013 is so cold! However, it wasn't 60% as crowed about by toxic topix AGW deniers. Multiple errors designed such by toxic AGW deniers, covered the fact that Arctic sea ice AREA only recovered by 35%. A more accurate measure, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME compared to average monthly sea ice VOLUME measures since 2010, show only a gain of 15% in volume. Up to December 1 2013, the year, again which toxic topix AGW deniers gloated was so cold, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME is only 7% greater than the monthly measures since 2010.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#42345 Jan 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
No science is fact based, liberal science is conjecture on top of conjecture equivalent to double and triple hearsay.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42346 Jan 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
Your understanding of "thinking" is flawed.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42347 Jan 1, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW scientists predicted Antarctic sea ice would increase in 2002, re-confirmed in 2005, & has occurred, as toxic topix AGW deniers like to point out, as if it wasn't an AGW scientific prediction.
You forgot the statement, "...Arctic sea ice has recovered by 60%" after the 2012 Arctic sea ice low record, of which toxic topix AGW deniers gloat that 2013 is so cold! However, it wasn't 60% as crowed about by toxic topix AGW deniers. Multiple errors designed such by toxic AGW deniers, covered the fact that Arctic sea ice AREA only recovered by 35%. A more accurate measure, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME compared to average monthly sea ice VOLUME measures since 2010, show only a gain of 15% in volume. Up to December 1 2013, the year, again which toxic topix AGW deniers gloated was so cold, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME is only 7% greater than the monthly measures since 2010.
Warmists have "science" that predicts all kinds of weather events.

A few years back when hurricanes were more frequent TA DA! "science" that says so.

Now with none to report, TA DA! again... "science" that says so.

So is the past "science" wrong?

Nope... just shelved until that particular event appears again.

But offer "skeptical" science? Warmists will go to all ends to "debunk" it.

As for the Arcic sea ice, isn't it a good thing to have recovered from such a low amount from last year by any amount?

Run along... your writing is tiresome. No one takes you seriously.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42348 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious.... he doesn't make distinction made between decadal vs. century predictions, but you've found it!
Abstract:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing.
You might want to look up what those big words mean.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42349 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey look everybody! The zealot is answering the question with a question then lashes out with a whole lot of nonsense..
Gee... convincing isn't he?
A lot more convincing than you.

Have you found out what the building/wind generator ratio is yet?

I thought not.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42350 Jan 1, 2014
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here.

Headlines today:
*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.
*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.
*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.

Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh
LMAOROFL, this is too funny...
So, your statements don't have to be factual; you just make them up all by yourself.

Where did you get these headlines? Is there a prize for how many sources I can guess right?

No sources. No scientific sites. Just another idiot on the Internets.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42351 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot more convincing than you.
.
Zealots are always sure of themselves.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42352 Jan 1, 2014
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
No science is fact based, liberal science is conjecture on top of conjecture equivalent to double and triple hearsay.
I have never heard of "liberal science". LOL That must be a buzz phrase the cons use to support their anti-science agenda. How does that compare with "conservative science"? Perhaps Senator Inhofe can clear that up......
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42353 Jan 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never heard of "liberal science". LOL That must be a buzz phrase the cons use to support their anti-science agenda. How does that compare with "conservative science"? Perhaps Senator Inhofe can clear that up......
Just as valid a term as "anti-science".

Deal with it.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42354 Jan 1, 2014
LoL "Liberal science" vs "Conservative science" at the risk of being jumped on again making religious analogies. In this case it sounds like politics influences science outcomes not facts. These same deniers rant on about words like "could" & "maybe" also as reason to deny it exists at all. Then in the same breath rigorously defend a religious belief based on the "could" & "maybe"
I would love to know how the thought process differentiates between the two, as well as how did climate change become a liberal idea. Conservatism by nature is "boxed in" thinking. Everything they do is guided by rules even if those rules were wrong in the first place, it can still take decades to correct. Liberalism by nature can work inside the box or outside. If rules block a desired outcome then question the rules as to why. Conservatives leave that until the world collapses before deciding the rules need changing. That is the marked difference between the two types of minds. The same applies with the climate debate, when you have that type of thinking the planet would have to fry before they figured action was needed. Why because at one point some tea bagger somewhere labelled it a liberal idea so the automated rules kick in on conservative minds, it can't be good for us. So in the meantime facts keep piling up on facts only to be ignored.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#42355 Jan 1, 2014
"The same applies with the climate debate, when you have that type of thinking the planet" would have to freeze (like Antarctica in the heat of the season with 85 team members stranded in ice yet STILL believing that their CO2 is 'cooking' the planet) before they stop ignoring the facts.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42356 Jan 1, 2014
B as in B S as in S wrote:
"The same applies with the climate debate, when you have that type of thinking the planet" would have to freeze (like Antarctica in the heat of the season with 85 team members stranded in ice yet STILL believing that their CO2 is 'cooking' the planet) before they stop ignoring the facts.
Meanwhile in that same part of the world in the southern hemisphere, parts of Australia have started the new year in sweltering conditions, with temperatures near 50 degrees Celsius in regional South Australia and a heatwave predicted for Queensland. That's 122 deg F which would just be shy of the previous record in 1960. So much for the ice effect in Antarctica.

As I said previously, you deniers would watch Rome burn before deciding on whether to get a bail of water or not.

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) 4 min RoxLo 1,458,025
News Hollywood hospital administrator quits after li... (Jul '08) 4 hr Catpeople 268
News Should men wear pantyhose for warmth? It's not ... (Jan '09) 22 hr TRUMANS Treason 234
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Sat zazz 98,270
News If ex-felons pay their dues to society, let's g... (Jun '08) Sat Squach 1,168
Want to move but have little money (Oct '12) Sat Angel 19
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) Fri Murphey_Law 512,860

Orlando Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages