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

Full story: Newsday 47,497
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35605 May 5, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately no matter how many posts explaining GW is all about the weather it still doesn't register. So when its referred to as climate change it still doesn't register. But weather to every country's food bowl has to have some predictability to it otherwise those food bowls would not be where they are. In a normal weather cycle a farmer might expect a drought once every 10 years or abnormal weather events coming around in that same period. They plough, sow and wait for the rains to come. If that happens for the most part 8 yrs out of 10 then they can make an income. But what happens when its 8 yrs of drought and 2 yrs of rain or vice versa. This is what is going on all over the planet now at different levels of scale which makes it harder for farmers to stay in business. That is climate change and what we do contributes to it. You can't have millions of years of carbon locked into the planet and release it all in a couple of hundred years and expect it to have no effect. Especially when you keep reducing the mechanisms as well to keep it locked. But that is what you guys keep repeating over n over. Its complete irrational logic!
This is so vague. We are not having any more droughts than usual.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35606 May 5, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
You might also want to look at the Wikipedia feature on climate change and agriculture. For instance one example like Pakistan might lose 50% of its cropping. I guess you guys would welcome these climate refugees with open arms considering they could not produce the food to feed themselves. It goes a lot further than just the weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_a...
Seriously...Droughts are common in Pakistan and Pakistan has a long history of drought events: The Punjab province experienced the worst drought in 1899, 1920 and 1935. The North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) experienced the worst droughts in 1902 and 1951, while Sindh Province had its worst droughts in 1871, 1881, 1899, 1931, 1947 and 1998. The recent drought (1997-2001) was the longest dry spell in the past 50 years. So that means there was as an "extreme" drought 50 years ago.

I find it amazing that you complain constantly about people starving or dying from climate change, but our government has implemented a policy to "combat" climate change that actually starves people today and doesn't do squat to lower emissions. But yet you don't seem to have a problem with ethanol...you know all that corn being burned up in our cars and all the land that was used for wheat, soybeans, etc. now being used for corn to burn up in our cars. Are you also one of those people who agree with not allowing Ethiopians to build a hydroelectric dam and instead just give out cooking stoves?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35607 May 5, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously...Droughts are common in Pakistan and Pakistan has a long history of drought events: The Punjab province experienced the worst drought in 1899, 1920 and 1935. The North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) experienced the worst droughts in 1902 and 1951, while Sindh Province had its worst droughts in 1871, 1881, 1899, 1931, 1947 and 1998. The recent drought (1997-2001) was the longest dry spell in the past 50 years. So that means there was as an "extreme" drought 50 years ago.
I find it amazing that you complain constantly about people starving or dying from climate change, but our government has implemented a policy to "combat" climate change that actually starves people today and doesn't do squat to lower emissions. But yet you don't seem to have a problem with ethanol...you know all that corn being burned up in our cars and all the land that was used for wheat, soybeans, etc. now being used for corn to burn up in our cars. Are you also one of those people who agree with not allowing Ethiopians to build a hydroelectric dam and instead just give out cooking stoves?
We are at the pointy end of the stick now, all we can do is try arrest any more damage. Sure places like Bangladesh either suffer from flood or famine but it becomes more frequent when weather patterns change course. It really is a stupid argument to say why should developed countries (the West) keep curbing emissions while developing countries take up the slack and add to it. You have to start somewhere otherwise its all like lemmings over the cliff.
If they had the spine, then you could hit imports with a duty for a product that has carbon loading. Or you could wait until China and India are all producing clean energy then do it. Which would obviously be too late. Thats the whole point, globalisation shifted a whole bunch of what was once clean manufacturing in the West to make it dirty in the East. Profit was the driving force not the environment. So the West cleaning up its act by throwing dirty over the fence did not do a damn thing. Business will not do this on their own, they have to be pushed or see a marketing opportunity in it. That is the only way to get change.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35608 May 5, 2013
twisty kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't gotten lost. We keep hearing that "extreme" weather is proof of AGW, so an ice age would be the ultimate extreme as we are being told now that increase cold is a sign of AGW.
But what I find interesting is what public officials tell the public versus what they say behind closed doors.
Julia Slingo of the Met office recently publicly stated this:
"The reduction in Arctic sea ice caused by climate change is playing a role in the UK's recent colder and drier winter weather, according to the Met Office. Speaking to MPs on the influential environmental audit committee about the state of the warming Arctic, Julia Slingo, the chief scientist at the Met Office, said that decreasing amounts of ice in the far north was contributing to colder winters in the UK and northern Europe as well as to drought. But she stressed that while it was one factor and not the "dominant driver" in the UK."
But emails obtained through FOIA reveal this was said:
It has been suggested that the decline of Arctic Sea Ice may drive low pressure over the UK, although this remains very uncertain at present. If low levels of Arctic sea ice were found to be affecting the track of the jet stream, for example, this could be seen as linked to the warming of our climate – but this is currently an unknown. The Met Office Hadley Centre, working with climate research centres around the world, is making strides in determining how the odds of extreme weather happening have been influenced by climate change. However, it is very difficult to do this type of analysis with such highly variable rainfall events, so it may take many years before we could confirm how the odds of this summer’s wet weather happening have been altered by greenhouse gases."
So without any scientific evidence, publicly, these officials state that the Arctic melt is causing the cold "extremes."
You are comparing statements about a one summer period- where there is certainly some evidence that AGW had an influence- to a period of several years- where there is very strong evidence of a trend influenced by AGW.
Whether through stupidity or mendacity, you again live up to the name "twisty kristy".
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35609 May 6, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
We are at the pointy end of the stick now, all we can do is try arrest any more damage. Sure places like Bangladesh either suffer from flood or famine but it becomes more frequent when weather patterns change course. It really is a stupid argument to say why should developed countries (the West) keep curbing emissions while developing countries take up the slack and add to it. You have to start somewhere otherwise its all like lemmings over the cliff.
If they had the spine, then you could hit imports with a duty for a product that has carbon loading. Or you could wait until China and India are all producing clean energy then do it. Which would obviously be too late. Thats the whole point, globalisation shifted a whole bunch of what was once clean manufacturing in the West to make it dirty in the East. Profit was the driving force not the environment. So the West cleaning up its act by throwing dirty over the fence did not do a damn thing. Business will not do this on their own, they have to be pushed or see a marketing opportunity in it. That is the only way to get change.
Why do you want people to starve? We have implemented a policy to combat climate change that does nothing to lower emissions and at the same time decreases the food supply and our ability to help those that are starving today. You asked if we would accept starving Pakistan refugees but our climate change policies have left us with a decreased food supply. Instead of us helping by sending wheat, oats etc, we are growing food to burn in our cars. At the same time, activists are trying to stop clean energy in Africa, which would help lift the poor out of poverty and instead we are sending cooking stoves which actually contribute to emissions. Now tell me how this helps those who you claim will be affected by climate change. It seems your only answer is just to raise the prices of all goods,making it even more difficult for those starving today.
litesong

Everett, WA

#35610 May 6, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Allah will cut off your head.
//////////
'middleofthedownwronggully' gushed:
i keep and bear arms....and the draw with my glock is much faster than allah's sword.
//////////
litesong wrote:
What if allah uses a piece of aluminum siding or roofing material, driven by a spiraling 300mph tornado. You should stay away from Tornado Alley.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35611 May 6, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You are comparing statements about a one summer period- where there is certainly some evidence that AGW had an influence- to a period of several years- where there is very strong evidence of a trend influenced by AGW.
Whether through stupidity or mendacity, you again live up to the name "twisty kristy".
No, what I’m saying is that we are told that we will have more “extreme” weather events due to AGW. That is what is told to the public. But yet behind closed doors, the scientists admit that THEY DON’T KNOW. Every one of you on here has said that the UK has experienced “extreme” cold because of the Arctic ice melt, but what was said behind closed doors and what they tell each other it is UNKNOWN if the Arctic sea ice is affecting the jet stream.

The Met office in emails obtained through FOIA also said this about recent droughts in the UK:

"Neither the development nor the severity of the 2010/12 drought was exceptional compared with historical events, and its climatological drivers have several similarities with past droughts. There is therefore, as yet, no evidence that it was due to climate change and not part of the natural variability of the climate."

But yet that does not stop these scientists from publically stating that these “extreme” events are due to climate change and then you have people like OzRitz claiming that droughts are happening at a greater frequency because of AGW. So you call me twisty, but I'm not the one saying one thing behind closed doors and then publicly stating something else. That's twisted.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35612 May 6, 2013
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1 wrote:
Allah will cut off your head.
//////////
'middleofthedownwronggully' gushed:
i keep and bear arms....and the draw with my glock is much faster than allah's sword.
//////////
litesong wrote:
What if allah uses a piece of aluminum siding or roofing material, driven by a spiraling 300mph tornado. You should stay away from Tornado Alley.
Here's a graph from NCDC on tornadoes from 1954 to 2012 and currently 2013 is in a tornado drought. So can you explain how people on here give out information that tornadoes are becoming more frequent and extreme.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#35613 May 6, 2013
prove that allah exists right after you're done proving man alter climate.
you have your home school assignment for the day....so get to it, sport.
litesong

Everett, WA

#35614 May 6, 2013
middleofthedownwronggully wrote:
......proving man alter climate.
you have your home school assignment.......
You have no science or mathematics degrees. You have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Prove you even have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa. You can't give out home work if you have no education to understand the homework.

"middleofthedownwronggull y" took the educational "middleofthedownwronggull y".

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#35615 May 6, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no science or mathematics degrees. You have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Prove you even have a hi skule DEE-plooomaa. You can't give out home work if you have no education to understand the homework.
"middleofthedownwronggull y" took the educational "middleofthedownwronggull y".
your assignment gives you the opportunity to show the forum just how smart you are. insulting someone else's educational level doesn't help you look smarter. you can answer the questions, no? You put both claims into play after all. You do have the science and math skills to demonstrate how mitigation will make a quantitative impact on climate, right? Or are you just not that bright?
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35616 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a graph from NCDC on tornadoes from 1954 to 2012 and currently 2013 is in a tornado drought. So can you explain how people on here give out information that tornadoes are becoming more frequent and extreme.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
No, you are WRONG. Here's the graph from 1950 to 2012 that shows that tornadoes are increasing:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35617 May 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are WRONG. Here's the graph from 1950 to 2012 that shows that tornadoes are increasing:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
No you are WRONG. The chart you posted is total number of tornadoes reported. If you had read the NOAA website you would have found out this key information about the chart you posted:

With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number of strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

The bar chart NOAA put out stating there has been little trend in frequency over the past 55 years (the chart I originally posted):

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...

You can read it all here:

www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornad...
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35618 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
No you are WRONG. The chart you posted is total number of tornadoes reported. If you had read the NOAA website you would have found out this key information about the chart you posted:
With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number of strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.
The bar chart NOAA put out stating there has been little trend in frequency over the past 55 years (the chart I originally posted):
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
You can read it all here:
www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornad...
Hey twisty, read my post again.

You are still WRONG.

Because you know no science or math, you think you can handle science. Go back to high school.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35619 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>..
The bar chart NOAA put out stating there has been little trend in frequency over the past 55 years (the chart I originally posted):
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
..
LIAR. You wrote this, not that:
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a graph from NCDC on tornadoes from 1954 to 2012 and currently 2013 is in a tornado drought. So can you explain how people on here give out information that tornadoes are becoming more frequent and extreme.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
And I posted for 1950 to 2012.

Comprehension is missing with you!
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35620 May 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR. You wrote this, not that:
<quoted text>And I posted for 1950 to 2012.
Comprehension is missing with you!
The chart you posted according to NOAA presents a MISLEADING APPEARANCE of frequency of tornadoes. So NOAA then made a chart of tornadoes of F3 or greater, as those tornadoes would have been most likely reported 55 years ago. So the chart I posted is a true comparison of the past and present (according to NOAA) of frequency and extremity of tornadoes. The conclusion is there has been little trend in frequency. What part do you not comprehend?....Your chart misleading for showing frequency and extremity comparisons according to NOAA and my chart from NOAA's website showing no trend in frequency or strength. Now if you have a problem with the science, take it up with NOAA.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35621 May 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LIAR. You wrote this, not that:
<quoted text>And I posted for 1950 to 2012.
Comprehension is missing with you!
Wow, the way a mind works can be down right scary.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35622 May 6, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The chart you posted .. presents a MISLEADING APPEARANCE ...
LOL.

Like I said before you the denier are a liar.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#35623 May 6, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, the way a mind works can be down right scary.
LOL.

That's the way your mini mind works. Don't trust yourself.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#35624 May 6, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.
Like I said before you the denier are a liar.
Noticed when you quoted my post you left out that NOAA was the group that said MISLEADING APPEARANCE, their words not mine. From NOAA:

"With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a MISLEADING APPEARANCE of an increasing trend in tornado frequency."

Like I said, if you have a problem with the science, why don't you email the NOAA scientists and let them know they are deniers and liars.

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.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min sonicfilter 1,126,736
Overpaid Firefighters (Sep '10) 21 min Righteous 399
Florida AG Bondi Opposes Gay Couple's Divorce 1 hr eJohn 8
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr JOEL 70,100
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 hr cpeter1313 306,263
Fun family activity this weekend: Take the kids... 9 hr buckinghamnicks 1
Edward James Logan 10 hr need to know 1

Rip Current Statement for Broward County was issued at October 23 at 2:18PM EDT

Pompano Beach Dating
Find my Match

Pompano Beach Jobs

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pompano Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pompano Beach

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]