Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60043 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.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46379 May 3, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice is blind.
climate alarmism is blind. you kooks never see actually observations for what they are. which is proof that all your models, forecastws, and predictions are always wrong and/or greatly overestimated.

co2 is cool. we just can't live without the stuff.

“fairtax.org”

Level 8

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#46380 May 3, 2014
Are tornadoes getting stronger and more frequent?
By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:24 PM GMT on February 26, 2008

Share this Blog

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on reddit
Share via email
Short Link Full Link 2 +
Are tornadoes and severe thunderstorms getting more numerous and more extreme due to climate change? To help answer this question, let's restrict our attention to the U.S., which has the highest incidence of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms of any place in the world. At a first glance, it appears that tornado frequency has increased in recent decades (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The number of EF-0 (blue line) and EF-1 and stronger tornadoes (maroon diamonds) reported in the U.S. since 1950. There is not a decades-long increasing trend in the numbers of tornadoes stronger than EF-0, implying that climate change, as yet, is not having a noticeable impact on U.S. tornadoes. However, statistics of tornado frequency and intensity are highly uncertain. Major changes in the rating process occurred in the mid-1970s (when all tornadoes occurring prior to about 1975 were retrospectively rated), and again in 2001, when scientists began rating tornadoes lower because of engineering concerns and unintended consequences of National Weather Service policy changes. According to Brooks (2013), "Tornadoes in the early part of the official National Weather Service record (1950-approximately 1975) are rated with higher ratings than the 1975 - 2000 period, which, in turn, had higher ratings than 2001 - 2007." Also, beginning in 2007, NOAA switched from the F-scale to the EF-scale for rating tornado damage, causing additional problems with attempting to assess if tornadoes are changing over time. Image credit: Kunkel, Kenneth E., et al., 2013, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge," Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 499–514, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1

However, this increase may be entirely caused by factors unrelated to climate change:

1) Population growth has resulted in more tornadoes being reported.

2) Advances in weather radar, particularly the deployment of about 100 Doppler radars across the U.S. in the mid-1990s, has resulted in a much higher tornado detection rate.

3) Tornado damage surveys have grown more sophisticated over the years. For example, we now commonly classify multiple tornadoes along a damage path that might have been attributed to just one twister in the past.

Given these uncertainties in the tornado data base, it is unknown how the frequency of tornadoes might be changing over time. The "official word" on climate science, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, stated it thusly: "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms." Furthermore, we're not likely to be able to develop methods to improve the situation in the near future.The current Doppler radar system can only detect the presence of a parent rotating thunderstorm that often, but not always, produces a tornado. Until a technology is developed that can reliably detect all tornadoes, there is no hope of determining how tornadoes might be changing in response to a changing climate. According to Doswell (2007): I see no near-term solution to the problem of detecting detailed spatial and temporal trends in the occurrence of tornadoes by using the observed data in its current form or in any form likely to evolve in the near future.
SpaceBlues

Humble, TX

#46381 May 3, 2014
flack wrote:
Are tornadoes getting stronger and more frequent?
By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:24 PM GMT on February 26, 2008
Share this Blog
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on reddit
Share via email
Short Link Full Link 2 +
Are tornadoes and severe thunderstorms getting more numerous and more extreme due to climate change? To help answer this question, let's restrict our attention to the U.S., which has the highest incidence of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms of any place in the world. At a first glance, it appears that tornado frequency has increased in recent decades (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The number of EF-0 (blue line) and EF-1 and stronger tornadoes (maroon diamonds) reported in the U.S. since 1950. There is not a decades-long increasing trend in the numbers of tornadoes stronger than EF-0, implying that climate change, as yet, is not having a noticeable impact on U.S. tornadoes. However, statistics of tornado frequency and intensity are highly uncertain. Major changes in the rating process occurred in the mid-1970s (when all tornadoes occurring prior to about 1975 were retrospectively rated), and again in 2001, when scientists began rating tornadoes lower because of engineering concerns and unintended consequences of National Weather Service policy changes. According to Brooks (2013), "Tornadoes in the early part of the official National Weather Service record (1950-approximately 1975) are rated with higher ratings than the 1975 - 2000 period, which, in turn, had higher ratings than 2001 - 2007." Also, beginning in 2007, NOAA switched from the F-scale to the EF-scale for rating tornado damage, causing additional problems with attempting to assess if tornadoes are changing over time. Image credit: Kunkel, Kenneth E., et al., 2013, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge," Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 499–514, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1
However, this increase may be entirely caused by factors unrelated to climate change:
1) Population growth has resulted in more tornadoes being reported.
2) Advances in weather radar, particularly the deployment of about 100 Doppler radars across the U.S. in the mid-1990s, has resulted in a much higher tornado detection rate.
3) Tornado damage surveys have grown more sophisticated over the years. For example, we now commonly classify multiple tornadoes along a damage path that might have been attributed to just one twister in the past.
Given these uncertainties in the tornado data base, it is unknown how the frequency of tornadoes might be changing over time. The "official word" on climate science, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, stated it thusly: "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms." Furthermore, we're not likely to be able to develop methods to improve the situation in the near future.The current Doppler radar system can only detect the presence of a parent rotating thunderstorm that often, but not always, produces a tornado. Until a technology is developed that can reliably detect all tornadoes, there is no hope of determining how tornadoes might be changing in response to a changing climate. According to Doswell (2007): I see no near-term solution to the problem of detecting detailed spatial and temporal trends in the occurrence of tornadoes by using the observed data in its current form or in any form likely to evolve in the near future.
WOW. You are lost in your skull.

Ask the victims or the scientists.
V Stiffiano

Fullerton, CA

#46382 May 3, 2014
flack wrote:
Are tornadoes getting stronger and more frequent?
By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:24 PM GMT on February 26, 2008
Share this Blog
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on reddit
Share via email
Short Link Full Link 2 +
Are tornadoes and severe thunderstorms getting more numerous and more extreme due to climate change? To help answer this question, let's restrict our attention to the U.S., which has the highest incidence of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms of any place in the world. At a first glance, it appears that tornado frequency has increased in recent decades (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The number of EF-0 (blue line) and EF-1 and stronger tornadoes (maroon diamonds) reported in the U.S. since 1950. There is not a decades-long increasing trend in the numbers of tornadoes stronger than EF-0, implying that climate change, as yet, is not having a noticeable impact on U.S. tornadoes. However, statistics of tornado frequency and intensity are highly uncertain. Major changes in the rating process occurred in the mid-1970s (when all tornadoes occurring prior to about 1975 were retrospectively rated), and again in 2001, when scientists began rating tornadoes lower because of engineering concerns and unintended consequences of National Weather Service policy changes. According to Brooks (2013), "Tornadoes in the early part of the official National Weather Service record (1950-approximately 1975) are rated with higher ratings than the 1975 - 2000 period, which, in turn, had higher ratings than 2001 - 2007." Also, beginning in 2007, NOAA switched from the F-scale to the EF-scale for rating tornado damage, causing additional problems with attempting to assess if tornadoes are changing over time. Image credit: Kunkel, Kenneth E., et al., 2013, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of Knowledge," Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 499–514, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00262.1
However, this increase may be entirely caused by factors unrelated to climate change:
1) Population growth has resulted in more tornadoes being reported.
2) Advances in weather radar, particularly the deployment of about 100 Doppler radars across the U.S. in the mid-1990s, has resulted in a much higher tornado detection rate.
3) Tornado damage surveys have grown more sophisticated over the years. For example, we now commonly classify multiple tornadoes along a damage path that might have been attributed to just one twister in the past.
Given these uncertainties in the tornado data base, it is unknown how the frequency of tornadoes might be changing over time. The "official word" on climate science, the 2007 United Nations IPCC report, stated it thusly: "There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms." Furthermore, we're not likely to be able to develop methods to improve the situation in the near future.The current Doppler radar system can only detect the presence of a parent rotating thunderstorm that often, but not always, produces a tornado. Until a technology is developed that can reliably detect all tornadoes, there is no hope of determining how tornadoes might be changing in response to a changing climate. According to Doswell (2007): I see no near-term solution to the problem of detecting detailed spatial and temporal trends in the occurrence of tornadoes by using the observed data in its current form or in any form likely to evolve in the near future.
That is so true.
V Stiffiano

Fullerton, CA

#46383 May 3, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
This is the new "Normal" for deniers, take a look at the graph on extreme weather events since the 80's
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepu...
Those graphs make no sense at all. My boyfriend says climate change is bunk.

Gotta go. My boyfriend is taking me waterboarding today at the beach. What should I wear?

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#46384 May 3, 2014
Respect the science!
Science has been 95% certain for 32 years and if it were a crisis they would be 100% certain, like they say how smoking will cause cancer and the earth is 100% not flat. Exaggerating is fear mongering so science never lied; you did.
Former "believers know it was never a WILL be consensus, now YOU know.
Drifting to sleep

Fairfield, CA

#46385 May 3, 2014
V Stiffiano wrote:
<quoted text>
Those graphs make no sense at all. My boyfriend says climate change is bunk.
Gotta go. My boyfriend is taking me waterboarding today at the beach. What should I wear?
A welding helmet.
Drifting to sleep

Fairfield, CA

#46386 May 3, 2014
mememine69 wrote:
Respect the science!
Science has been 95% certain for 32 years and if it were a crisis they would be 100% certain, like they say how smoking will cause cancer and the earth is 100% not flat. Exaggerating is fear mongering so science never lied; you did.
Former "believers know it was never a WILL be consensus, now YOU know.
I was never a believer, does that mean im ahead of the curve?.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#46388 May 3, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>climate alarmism is blind. you kooks never see actually observations for what they are. which is proof that all your models, forecastws, and predictions are always wrong and/or greatly overestimated.
co2 is cool. we just can't live without the stuff.
Your problem is that you do not know the difference between alarmism and fact. The facts are; The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If that is alarming, sobeit.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46389 May 3, 2014
Drifting to sleep wrote:
<quoted text>
I was never a believer, does that mean im ahead of the curve?.
The results affirm the strong and growing scientific consensus developing from the understanding of the physical origins and consequences of climate change, as outlined in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Working Group 1 report last September. Those that choose to ignore them, or contradict them, will (I predict) still be directly affected by them. And we will be hit where it hurts most – in our wallets. How likely is it that the insurance industry will ignore such results?[scientific american]
Los Angeles

Fullerton, CA

#46390 May 3, 2014
Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend, defying alarmist global warming predictions and debunking claims that warmer winters are causing environmental catastrophe.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46391 May 3, 2014
Los Angeles wrote:
Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend, defying alarmist global warming predictions and debunking claims that warmer winters are causing environmental catastrophe.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan ge/endangerment/comments/volum e2.html
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46392 May 3, 2014
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#46393 May 3, 2014
Los Angeles wrote:
Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend, defying alarmist global warming predictions and debunking claims that warmer winters are causing environmental catastrophe.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995.
Comment (2-24):
Many commenters (e.g., 1018.1, 1117.1, 1158.1, 3570.1, 4184, 9786) state their support for the Findings, noting observed increases in global temperatures as one of the environmental effects of climate change.

Response (2-24):
We agree with the commenters that the global temperatures are increasing and note that the assessment literature finds warming of the climate system “unequivocal”(IPCC, 2007a; Karl et al., 2009). See the Findings, Section IV.B (PDF)(52 pp, 307K),“The Air Pollution Is Reasonably Anticipated to Endanger Both Public Health and Welfare,” for our response to comments on how the Administrator weighed the scientific evidence underlying her endangerment determination.

Comment (2-25):
A few commenters express their support for the Findings and note their observations of temperature changes. Noting that he has lived in the Midwest for 60 years, a commenter (2072) attests that the winters over the last 30 years have been warmer than the previous 30 years. A commenter (3400.1) from Washington State mentions that he is seeing regional temperature increases.

Response (2-25):
We agree with the observations of these commenters. Karl et al.(2009) note a noticeable increase in temperatures in the Midwest in recent decades and report the largest increase has been measured in winter. Karl et al.(2009) also indicate warming in the Pacific Northwest and in Washington state in recent decades.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#46394 May 3, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you do not know the difference between alarmism and fact. The facts are; The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. If that is alarming, sobeit.
i don't have a problem, son. Apparently you have a problem with how some of us interpret facts. Earth May or may not be warming, but it has never been static anyway. Co2 is a ghg....a minor one, though. Man made emissions from burning fossil fuels is but a small fraction of that small percentage. I find it hilarious that some of you believe that placing a tax on that tiny fraction of a small percentage of a very minor trace gas would somehow alter what climate always does. That would be change.
howdy

New York, NY

#46395 May 3, 2014
Hi mom
Drifting to sleep

Fairfield, CA

#46396 May 3, 2014
China will be the worlds largest economy by the end of 2014, they don't give 2 shits about the environment. No one else seems to give 2 shits about what china does either.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#46398 May 3, 2014
Drifting to sleep wrote:
China will be the worlds largest economy by the end of 2014, they don't give 2 shits about the environment. No one else seems to give 2 shits about what china does either.
Who tells you this...Fox. How long do you think they will tolerate walking around their big cities with breathing masks ? It was the west who moved their dirty manufacturing there, they saw it as an opportunity now they have to face the same issues the west faced in the 70's with rising pollution problems etc. Sooner or later the piper has to pay, so you buying cheap $hit from China contributes overall to the pollution of the planet. The sooner you deniers come to grips with that the better off we will all be. Trying to blame them as an excuse to do nothing is as lame as your do nothing arguments on green house gases.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46399 May 3, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you do not know the difference between alarmism and fact.
So says a spokesman from the 'alarmism is fact' crowd.

LOL
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#46400 May 3, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
.Fox.
SQUAWK!!!!

Your "FOX" claxon is broken... as is your arguments... your writing... your logic... and your ability to have a coherent discussion.

Nothing to see here... again.

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) 1 hr Yeah 1,394,924
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 2 hr WasteWater 919
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 2 hr Patriot 275
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 3 hr -Prince- 19,014
News Supreme Court leaves assault weapons bans in pl... 4 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 117
News At gay pride parades, a year to weave sorrow an... 4 hr chokesontranniesu... 6
Casey Anthony is still a MILF 5 hr one love 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages