Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59532 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.

Osama Ben Gurion

Clearwater, FL

#35100 Apr 13, 2013
Obama bin Biden wrote:
Yeah, hurry up and act before this farce called "Global Warming" is exposed. Are'nt we seeing record cold snaps for this early in the season.
.......... See SLIME and PUNISHMENT about the large carbon footprint of the zio-imperialists and the JDL Wolfpack Stalkers with cars with fl tags 858 IWJ , M95 9ME , AFQ B30 , 494 MIU , 547 VMJ , 243 PIE , 244 PIE , 668 PCK , BAL Y35 , 711 NNW , RNJ46 , X12 OKE and GOAMG ,,,,,, See THE GATEKEEPERS and Little Farvel Dalsimer Infiltrates Rick Sandler's INSIGHT GROUP of ZOG .
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35101 Apr 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Troll warning. Avoid feeding it.
No warning necessary, SpaceCase - your bona fides as a troll are already well-established here and across Topix.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35102 Apr 13, 2013
LOL.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#35103 Apr 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense.
Why don't you provide evidence to your nonsense? You can't because you have none.
Let's take the US trees. Are you telling me there were not trees where there are now highways, pipelines, airports, housing for about 330 million people, supermarkets, schools, hospitals, facilities for the biggest army in the world, ports, factories, refineries, mines, sewage ponds, electricity transmission lines, stadiums of all kinds, shopping centers, large farms, large ranches, animal slaughter conglomerates, harvest silos, animal grazing fields, warehouses, garbage dump sites, grass lawns, supermarkets, truck stops, parking lots, police stations of all kinds, the most and largest prisons in the world, detention centers, zoos, play grounds, rodeo grounds, film studios, opera houses, theaters, concert halls, track fields, rest homes, pharmacies, border facilities, new government buildings of all kinds, bus depots, golf courses, tennis courts, ball fields, telescope sites, museums, business buildings, court buildings, city buildings, dams, fish ponds, swimming pools, city-water and distribution systems, end-to-end railroads, shipyards, boat hangers, plane hangers, NASA/space facilities, immigration facilities, garages, car repair shops, tree farms, helicopter pads, the biggest mail system in the world, tv stations, rental car agencies, car lots, electronic factories, Apple, MS, ski facilities, ski hills, telecommunication facilities, sink holes, lumber yards, movie theaters, sewage lines, telephone towers, restaurants, fast food eateries, cafetarias, Walmart, Topix headquarters,..?
ecopreservationsociaty.org/information-refore...

One of many dude.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35104 Apr 14, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the civility of your post!! It's nice to actually see dialogue.
>>Thanks, I try to be civil.:)
1. The theory of AGW is that as CO2 rises, temperature rise.
>>The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
2. That the 20th century increase in temperatures is unprecedented.
>>Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."
3. That CO2 is the main driver of the climate and that man is mostly responsible for the increase in the temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels.
>>I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.
I have to do this response in 2 posts.

1. The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.

>>The IPCC calculates with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. We hear we must decrease the burning of fossil fuel, tax carbon or implement cap and trade. The IPCC calculates that due to the increased CO2 temperatures will rise 0.3 C per decade in the 21st century. It’ pretty clear that they link increased CO2 with temperature increase.

2. Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."

>>Mann’s hockey stick was promoted as 20th century temperatures were the highest in 1000 years, so unprecedented.

3. I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.

>>Everyone is saying that CO2 is the main driver increasing temperatures, and again, like I said above, if the IPCC and scientists and activists don’t believe it is the main driver of temperature increase, then why the drive to tax CO2 and the constant insistence we must stop burning fossil fuels? If the climate scientists know that CO2 is not the main driver of the climate, why don’t the models reflect that? For instance, Susan Solomon’s paper states this:
“The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add. The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.”

So the paper suggests that water vapor was responsible for almost 1/3 of GW and the paper states that this does not undermine the consensus that emissions from human activity (fossil fuels-CO2) is not the main driver, but that they do need to call for a “closer examination” of the way computer models consider water vapor. If water vapor is responsible for 1/3, and as you say, greenhouse gases would have many contributors, then why are these not incorporated in the models?
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35105 Apr 14, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
4. That climate modeling is able to predict what will happen in the future.
>>It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.
This is what the debate is about. So when we talk about the past temperatures, it is important in the debate as part of the theory is that 20th century warming is unprecedented and when we see CO2 continuing to increase but temperatures staying flat for 17 years, then that needs to be investigated more thoroughly.
>>Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.
I find it interesting that so many people believe in consensus science, as science is all about being skeptical. How can we ever progress if we don't let those scientists who are skeptical speak out without fear of being smeared?
>>Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?

>>We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?
4. It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.

>>The world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality. So there is a problem.

5. Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.

>> Mann is the one who put out a paper stating 20th century temperatures were unprecedented. In order for you to unequivocally show a link to man, you have to show that temperatures have never been so high. Temperatures have stayed flat for 17 years. It has been confirmed by many climate scientists and the MET office and the IPCC. I haven’t heard anyone deny that.

7. Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?

>>Yes that’s true, it happens on both sides.
Something isn’t proven to be true just because there is a consensus. There are many factors to explain temperature increases and now we have a 17-year flattening and many scientists are now questioning the models, the reasons for the flattening, other factors such as sun, clouds, water vapor that drive the climate.

8. We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?

>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
SpaceBlues

United States

#35106 Apr 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>First peace treaty on this planet, we think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_-... (1269_a.C.)_-_Foto_G._Dall%27O rto_28-5-2006.jpg
True again.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35107 Apr 14, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Shooter McGavin

AOL

#35108 Apr 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Listen to what I say.
kristy

Titusville, FL

#35109 Apr 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is as stated in previous post, relying on ppl to change lifestyle habits without penalties involved is a fruitless exercise. It has to hit your pocket to become viable otherwise no one will buy an electric car while gas is cheap or put up solar panels when the alternative energy is cheaper.
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year because that model can only survive on growth through expansion. Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them. The only way to do that is to create a whole new economy that has value in green that is as good as gold.
Your solution has to do with conserving resources and has nothing to do with decreasing the Earth's temperature. Two different things. If solar panels and electric cars are in demand, then resources will be needed to produce these items. Won't you just have another problem with consumption demand and the Earth's resources, i.e. mining for lithium and tellurium? What exactly are you accomplishing?

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/f...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10077965-54... #!

SpaceBlues

United States

#35110 Apr 14, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to do this response in 2 posts.
1. The idea of AGW is that warming is caused or accelerated by human release of greenhouse gases. C02 isn't the only greenhouse gas.
>>The IPCC calculates with confidence that CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect. We hear we must decrease the burning of fossil fuel, tax carbon or implement cap and trade. The IPCC calculates that due to the increased CO2 temperatures will rise 0.3 C per decade in the 21st century. It’ pretty clear that they link increased CO2 with temperature increase.
2. Incorrect. It would be the degree of human involvement in temperature increases since the mid-19th century that would be "unprecedented."
>>Mann’s hockey stick was promoted as 20th century temperatures were the highest in 1000 years, so unprecedented.
3. I don't know of anyone saying that "C02 is the main driver of the climate," and as noted, warming due to greenhouse gases would have many contributors.
>>Everyone is saying that CO2 is the main driver increasing temperatures, and again, like I said above, if the IPCC and scientists and activists don’t believe it is the main driver of temperature increase, then why the drive to tax CO2 and the constant insistence we must stop burning fossil fuels? If the climate scientists know that CO2 is not the main driver of the climate, why don’t the models reflect that? For instance, Susan Solomon’s paper states this:
“The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. A subsequent decline in water vapour after 2000 could explain a recent slowdown in global temperature rise, the scientists add. The experts say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.”
So the paper suggests that water vapor was responsible for almost 1/3 of GW and the paper states that this does not undermine the consensus that emissions from human activity (fossil fuels-CO2) is not the main driver, but that they do need to call for a “closer examination” of the way computer models consider water vapor. If water vapor is responsible for 1/3, and as you say, greenhouse gases would have many contributors, then why are these not incorporated in the models?
LOL. You will never make sense in science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#35111 Apr 14, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
4. It can with some degree of certainty, which has increased as models and computers have increased in sophistication.
>>The world’s leading climate modelers wrote in the NOAA’s State of the Climate report in 2008 that 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between the models and measured reality. So there is a problem.
5. Again, I don't see why warming needs to be "unprecedented," only that there be a link visible between it and human activities. Also, temperatures have not "stayed flat for 17 years." In fact, about 2/3 of the .8 C increase has occurred since 1980.
>> Mann is the one who put out a paper stating 20th century temperatures were unprecedented. In order for you to unequivocally show a link to man, you have to show that temperatures have never been so high. Temperatures have stayed flat for 17 years. It has been confirmed by many climate scientists and the MET office and the IPCC. I haven’t heard anyone deny that.
7. Science is also about BUILDING consensuses, of course. And are "warming scientists," for lack of a better term, not also smeared by those who deny warming or AGW?
>>Yes that’s true, it happens on both sides.
Something isn’t proven to be true just because there is a consensus. There are many factors to explain temperature increases and now we have a 17-year flattening and many scientists are now questioning the models, the reasons for the flattening, other factors such as sun, clouds, water vapor that drive the climate.
8. We have further to go, but given that we know the Earth is warming and that humans play a role, wouldn't it be prudent to consider what actions may need to be taken? Should we wait and see if warming will spiral out of control, or would that be too late?
>>The solutions do not help anyone. Could you show me how cap and trade has helped CO2 levels in the UK? Our solution is take taxpayer money and give it to green companies. Many of those companies have gone bankrupt. Another solution seems to be to stop any kind of energy in the 3rd world countries. Environmentalists are blocking dams in Africa and giving out cooking pots instead. Besides spreading taxpayer money around, who exactly are we helping and is it wise to throw away money to bad solutions?
Keep trying if you are paid by the pound. You represent deniers as bad as any other denier. LOL.
drink The hive

New York, NY

#35112 Apr 14, 2013
For F//uck' Sake - Seriously? At A Festival? Hookers?...

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5278/poolc...
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35113 Apr 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly its a path to self destruction so it would be far more prudent to turn that on its head and create growth through conserving resources rather than using them.
Ahh, yes - the long- and repeatedly-discredited Malthusian Club of Rome/Limits to Growth vision of humans' future as one of trickle-up poverty enforced by a State ruled by scarcity mentalities.

Completely ignoring the fact that technological advances have _always_ provided for growth without limits, and continually rendered supposed resource-based limits to growth meaningless throughout history.

Teddy R

Reston, VA

#35114 Apr 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The capitalism model for the worlds economies consumes 1.5 times the earth's resources each year (sic)...
Did you even think about this patent nonsense statement before posting it?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35115 Apr 14, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you even think about this patent nonsense statement before posting it?
Yes but you just misread it, if i went on with some long winded explanation then it misses the point. Consumption of the planet's resources is consumed by 1.5 times each yr before it can be replaced again.
In simple terms, fossil fuels consumed before being replenished, trees cut down before new ones reach maturity.

If you want detail then here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57434525/...
Obama-Hoodwinked -YOU

Minneapolis, MN

#35116 Apr 14, 2013
Global Warming is slowing down.

Minnesota has 3-4 feet of snow and it's the middle of April. There's talk like the snow might not melt this summer and glaciers will be starting formation.

Global Warming is a myth!!!!

A bunch of BS from Al Gore, one of the richest people in the world. Why doesn't Al share his wealth?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35117 Apr 14, 2013
Obama-Hoodwinked-YOU wrote:
Global Warming is slowing down.
Minnesota has 3-4 feet of snow and it's the middle of April. There's talk like the snow might not melt this summer and glaciers will be starting formation.
Global Warming is a myth!!!!
A bunch of BS from Al Gore, one of the richest people in the world. Why doesn't Al share his wealth?
Typical ignorant post from a denier who thinks global warming is all about having a long hot summer!. If you get your info from shock jocks and fox news then you have a lot to learn.
Global warming is ALL ABOUT 3-4 feet of snow in the middle of April, its ALL ABOUT changing rain fall patterns, it's ALL ABOUT extreme weather! That is the threat of loading the planet with too much C02 as it is ALL ABOUT ocean temps ,not the f...g temps outside your window.
Obama-Hoodwinked -YOU

Minneapolis, MN

#35118 Apr 14, 2013
Why is it called Global Warming if it isn't about WARMING?

A year ago all you pot smoking radicals were claiming the WARM spring was proof positive of Global Warming!!

NOW we have a bonified COLD SPRING and you radicals are claiming it's PROOF of Global Warming.

WHICH IS IT????

It's too obvious it's BS!!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35119 Apr 14, 2013
It was a mistake to call it global warming because of ppl such as yourself who cannot grasp what it means when you have a sub zero winter. But its never about that one day, or week its about mean temps rising but more important ocean temps rising, ice melting and the result of that is CLIMATE CHANGE.

But the facts are mean temps all over the planet are increasing, and weather comes from the oceans. Ocean levels rising and low lying communities coming under pressure. Like a 1 deg increase in sea temps in the gulf for instance can mean the difference between a cat 1-2 storm changing into a category 5. THAT'S CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!! Man has the tech to address it but like gun control the ignorant just can't get their heads around it.

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.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min RealDave 1,383,719
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 18 hr orange girly man 20,307
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) Fri cpeter1313 311,215
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Fri TRD 70,607
News Suspect Had Quit Rehab (Mar '08) May 24 Ken Burke 135
News West Hartford Seniors Win Gold At State Table T... May 23 Coolstory 1
News Shots Fired After Bank Robbery, Police Chase In... (Mar '08) May 23 JoeBakRotsInHell 87
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages