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

Full story: Newsday 49,240
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“Let's X Change!!”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#43733 Feb 19, 2014
oneear69 wrote:
<quoted text> I've given what the majority of scientists agree upon. I have yet to see your data, for your side of the debate.
you need to go back and read your own material, son!

scientists haven't agreed on anything except speculation......especially where grant money is concerned. i haven't seen a scientist say anything more than might or may!!

i haven't seen a scientist stick his neck out showing what man made co2 emission reductions will do in altering climate!!

have you, make believe smarty??
Hey now

Los Angeles, CA

#43734 Feb 20, 2014
Where are all the alarmists? Must have arctic vector brain freeze.

C'mon Chicken Little. Show yourself.

Get out from under the desk. Stop shaking.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43736 Feb 20, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"]....you demand that isolated floods in the pacific northwest are proof.... "of" theory.
.... whoring....[/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" fears, rightly, that its demands that an isolated whore visit it in the down wrong gully, will go unheeded.

With thousands of evidences of changing AGW climate pouring onto people of Earth, only people in the down wrong gully stonewall, taking each evidence individually & saying they don't mean "nothin', no how".

Yet, increasing Antarctic sea ice is toted by touched touchy toxic topix AGW deniers as global cooling. However, in 2002 & reconfirmed in 2005, AGW science predicted Antarctic sea ice increase. In truth "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Yeah, AGW climate IS changing around the world, even in my own back yard. I have swamped neighbor's barns due to flooding, so wet hay wouldn't catch fire, tho those barns' contents had never flooded before. I've watched a church member's home almost taken away in a creek flow....... altho previously, there were no creeks within 400 yards.
/////////
litesong wrote:
In 2008, shoveling snow off their Skykomish roofs, the only place to put it was in their yards..... which were already 11 feet deep in snow..... & higher than the roofs they were shoveling.

Skykomish, WA is in the mountains & 62 miles north of Mt. Rainier, which has had the most snow in the world at over 83 feet of total yearly snowfall. Now tho, Mt. Baker, 76 miles north of Skykomish, has the world yearly total snow fall at ~87 feet.
//////////
Posted:
So, what happens when the Spring thaw begins? Flooding?
//////////
litesong wrote:
During Spring floods, the rivers often have water flow rates, 100+ times more than summer time flow rates. That may not seem like much to you, since many rivers are summer dry in arid regions. But our rivers flow year round.
Saying that tho, it does appear that man-made global warming is changing precipitation patterns, even with our abundant rain fall. Presently, we get very slightly more rainfall(including snowfall) during the winter(tho sometimes longer periods without rain are occurring) & our summertimes are getting more arid.
//////////
Watching the weather radar, the "pineapple express" stabilized, pointing directly at our region of the Cascade mountains & focused on a particular ridge. After the first day, a 2 square kilometer slope had been hit by 35inches of rain. Going to bed & waking the next morning, the radar surprisingly showed the "pineapple express" still focused on that ridge, now at 55 inches. By days end, 75 inches had fallen on that one slope. Day three, the "pineapple express" was still focused & saw 110 inches by day's end. On the fourth day, the "pineapple express" started shifting, but that slope had taken 133 inches of rain.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43737 Feb 20, 2014
[QUOTE who="Hay, i'm dense now"] Wonder what.....[/QUOTE]

"Hay, i'm dense now" thinks a stupid question without an answer is worth scientific AGW papers. Of course, "Hay, i'm dense now" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa to be worth anything.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#43739 Feb 20, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hay, i'm dense now" thinks a stupid question without an answer is worth scientific AGW papers. Of course, "Hay, i'm dense now" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa to be worth anything.
Do you have any new material for your lame comedy act?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Level 1

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#43740 Feb 21, 2014
oneear69 wrote:
<quoted text> I've given what the majority of scientists agree upon. I have yet to see your data, for your side of the debate.
So, you believe what the consensus says then, correct?
Well this article is for you and those in your consensus.
Here's the background on the authors: McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
Jefferson

Fullerton, CA

#43741 Feb 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"Hay, i'm dense now" thinks a stupid question without an answer is worth scientific AGW papers. Of course, "Hay, i'm dense now" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa to be worth anything.
Koo koo, Koo koo
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43742 Feb 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>So, you believe what the consensus says then, correct?
Well this article is for you and those in your consensus.
Here's the background on the authors: McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142...
"The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space."

Yes, that is what the consensus says.

Do you believe those facts?
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43743 Feb 21, 2014
As to whether Christy's 1994 paper says anything about the last two decades, the answer is no.

Removing 20 years of ocean heating does not give you an accurate figure for how much the world has warmed: his own satellite data give a much higher figure.

Which is why he is talking to the Wall St Journal and not the scientific community.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/10/2...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43744 Feb 21, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"]are you mentally retarded?
just saying.[/QUOTE]

We know "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" can only say something non-scientific, because "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43745 Feb 21, 2014
false farts wrote:
Do you have any new material.....
Yes, I do. We know "false farts" has no new science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43746 Feb 21, 2014
jefferson wrote:
Koo koo, Koo koo
"jefferson" thinks it is koo koo to have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. That is why it is a touched touchy toxic topix AGW denier.
guest

Searcy, AR

#43747 Feb 21, 2014
Gas cannot retain heat thats what I was taught in school. CO2 is a gas correct.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Level 1

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#43749 Feb 21, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
"The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space."
Yes, that is what the consensus says.
Do you believe those facts?
I believe this :"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."

The article clearly reflects that as scientists they must step back and take a look based upon facts and not speculative models that hurt their cause. Something a lot of us have said for years. Note that the models get redefined as more facts become know.

Science must demand FACTS AND NOT GRANTS based upon the sky is falling emotions.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Level 1

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#43750 Feb 21, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
As to whether Christy's 1994 paper says anything about the last two decades, the answer is no.
Removing 20 years of ocean heating does not give you an accurate figure for how much the world has warmed: his own satellite data give a much higher figure.
Which is why he is talking to the Wall St Journal and not the scientific community.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/10/2...
He's not talking to the scientific community because he got a Nobel prize based upon what is now questionable data and he perhaps would rather save face among his peers?
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43751 Feb 21, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y]i conducted a scientific study[/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa, so it doesn't know how to conduct a scientific study.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43752 Feb 21, 2014
social disease wrote:
We might forgive.....
"social disease can't forgive its lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa.
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#43754 Feb 21, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do. We know "false farts" has no new science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
blah,blah,blah,dirty little troll
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43757 Feb 21, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"].......retards are so.......[/QUOTE]

We know "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" can only say something non-scientific, because "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" never had science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly(or non-) earned hi skule DEE-ploomaa. We also know that "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" is disrespectful of those less fortunate them itself. "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" could also be a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#43759 Feb 21, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I believe this :"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."
The article clearly reflects that as scientists they must step back and take a look based upon facts and not speculative models that hurt their cause. Something a lot of us have said for years. Note that the models get redefined as more facts become know.
Science must demand FACTS AND NOT GRANTS based upon the sky is falling emotions.
When every single model overestimates warming how can anyone argue there isn't a bias towards a preconceived "scientific" consensus?

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) 3 min Smart Alex 1,154,362
T-Rex Does the State have a Dummy 21 min H A N S 1
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 42 min T-REX 490,274
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 43 min Murph 70,615
5000 post wins (Feb '13) 2 hr Princess Hey 4,324
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 2 hr Miles 17,709
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 4 hr zazz 96,664
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 3:29 pm PST

NFL 3:29PM
Seven injured by lightning strike after Packers-Bucs game
Yahoo! Sports 3:29 PM
Lightning strike in Florida sends fans to hospital after NFL game
Bleacher Report 3:43 PM
Highlights, Recap for Packers vs. Bucs
ESPN 3:53 PM
Seven injured by lightning near Bucs game
Yahoo! Sports 5:46 PM
Packers, Steelers and Cowboys head to playoffs