Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 59531 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.

B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38697 Aug 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Earth is gaining heat. That has been established.
...and THAT is your point after all your prior b as in b s as in s? It "has been established" that the Earth is gaining heat?

I am happy to inform you that your experts have been saying for many years now that the Earth is NOT gaining heat!

Check it out...'They' are trying to find the missing energy but (so far) can't.

Keep the 'Faith Baby'!
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#38698 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system. That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures. We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.
If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.
That would mean we are all going to suffer global cooling! "Oh, the Humanity"!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38699 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?
LOL, of course not, you silly goose! You're such a kidder!

Can you not read, or is it that you cannot understand? As I stated, I have refuted your side's arguments a thousand times. Do you have any new ones? No.

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. The first post for which I have a record is November of 2009. There were fence-sitters then, now there are nothing but deniers. And I've never "converted" a denier.

I said the other day that you guys wore me out. Southern expression, mostly. But it also meant that you are tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights. You're just no fun.

Calling names? You don't like your label? Change it, then! Deniers are not serious skeptics; they, you, are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie. The shoe fits you entirely too well, Cinderella.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38700 Aug 31, 2013
Michael Mann is winning in court:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/o...

The lies will be proven to be lies. The defamation of this man's reputation and character is going to result in a big, fat check for Dr. Mann.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38701 Aug 31, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Dr. Alan Robock,a distinguished professor of climate science at Rutgers University, is a lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Those reports are considered the “definitive assessment of the risks of climate change.”
He explained that the burning of fossil fuels by humans causes the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and these gases retain heat from the sun like a backyard greenhouse. Higher temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, and hotter air holds more water. These changes are causing rising average world temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, volatile weather including more severe storms and droughts, more wild fires, and ecosystem changes.
He emphasized the severe impacts of increased global warming on human society and our metropolitan area, including future flooding of low lying areas in New Jersey and Manhattan.
http://newprovidence.patch.com/groups/around-...
"OFA is working to organize and energize the public to pressure Congress to lead the world on Climate Change and preserve our economy."

Organizing for Action is a spinoff of Obama's re-election campaign.

Nothing like raw politics when the science is lacking, huh?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38702 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.
So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?
The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.
CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.
And of those 400 blue jelly beans the warmists are predicting destruction on 50 of them.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38703 Aug 31, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?
No, because the "skeptics" are not real sceptics, and they don't post in good faith. They post the same old canards over and over no matter how many times they are debunked.

They get the contempt because they deserve it.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38704 Aug 31, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
That would mean we are all going to suffer global cooling!
Yes, fun farts is predicting 30 years of global cooling.

Science of course is predicting 30 more years of warming.

fun farts is an old man of course, so he is free to make predictions that fly in the face of science because he won't be around to see what happens or deal with it.

Free to make believe reality will conform to his ideology.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#38705 Aug 31, 2013
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38706 Aug 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because the "skeptics" are not real sceptics, and they don't post in good faith. They post the same old canards over and over no matter how many times they are debunked.
They get the contempt because they deserve it.
Speak of the devil...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#38707 Sep 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Speak of the devil...
"the green troll"
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38708 Sep 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Another week gone by without any experimental test of climate change mitigation. No experiments show man changing global climate. That's why climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience.
Whitewash.

Rinse.

Repeat.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38709 Sep 1, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>

Unsupported gibberish. The oceans absorb the heat in shallow or deeper layers (depending on how clear the water is) but the dominant effect is in vertical transport of heat which means that heat absorbed today may be move out of the atmosphere/water interface for very long times.

We are seing a flattening of AIR temperatures mostly because of a strong La-Nina moving a lot of deeper COOL water to the surface. His point is that this is a small change in ocean that can have a large effect on air temperature.
.
Not sure what you were trying to say. Heat is absorbed by the oceans at the surface. Depending on where at the surface the ocean itself will be more or less saline. Some areas of the ocean, like the earth, do not receive much rainfall other areas receive a lot of rainfall. Less rainfall and the surface is more saline, more rainfall and the fresh water tends to 'ride the surface' of the saline water because fresh water is less dense.

Once heat is absorbed at the surface you might think of it as getting a seat on a roller coaster. The heat received is transported throughout the system in horizontal and vertical patterns. As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process.

Warm water is less dense than cold water. Low saline water is less dense than warm saline water. All the heated water will follow the same course but it makes a difference where the water got on the ride in how it impacts climate.

As the water cools and as evaporation makes the once fresh water more saline, the water becomes more dense and drops to lower levels of the ocean circulation.

La Nina is part of this process. When the pacific is in the negative phase of it's oscillation we experience more frequent and more impactful La Ninas.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38710 Sep 1, 2013
" As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process."

should read

As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and [the ocean water] becomes more dense in the process.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38711 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.
A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.
I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.
You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.
When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.
I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.
So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.
I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.
So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:
Deniers are idiots.
A few years ago it was a lot easier to refute wasn’t it? But now that it has become well publicized that the Earth is not warming as predicted and new scientific studies have emerged regarding water vapor, climate sensitivity, PDO, climate model failures, solar activity, antarctica ice at record levels, it becomes harder to refute. So shorthand form, you’re lazy and resort to name calling.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#38712 Sep 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. The first post for which I have a record is November of 2009. There were fence-sitters then, now there are nothing but deniers. And I've never "converted" a denier.
I said the other day that you guys wore me out. Southern expression, mostly. But it also meant that you are tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights. You're just no fun.
.
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.

Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38713 Sep 1, 2013
bligh wrote:
<quoted text>
Up date mu talking points?? Hard to keep up??? I never once mentioned Antarctica Sea Ice now did I. You need to more carefully read what is written to you.
Here is the first sentence from your post to me:

Antarctica Ice is staying about the same.

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

How do you type something and not know you typed it? Like I said the new talking point is that Antarctic sea ice is increasing, consistent with what was predicted.(even though that was never predicted.)

Example:

The recent observed positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent are at odds with the expectation of melting sea ice in a warming world. More problematic yet, climate models indicate that sea ice should decrease around Antarctica in response to both increasing greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion.

More examples here at my previous post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...

kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38714 Sep 1, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Classic creationist Gish gallop.
Too tiresome.
Looks good on your CV, not on mine, as Dawkins said.
Krusty spends all day looking for denialist arguments from denier blogs, cutting and pasting them here, considers this a debate, and a weariness to refute any of her second-hand denier arguments some sort of victory.
Cheered on by her usual companions in this little denial circle jerk.
Hey remember when you said climate has been stable for 11,000 years and posted a link to prove it? Remember when I copied and pasted from YOUR LINK showing the shortfalls of the study as stated by the AUTHOR of the study? Remember when you accused me of going to a “denier” site and getting that information? Remember when I asked you to copy and paste the 2nd paragraph from your link? Remember when you did that? I don’t. That’s because you were wrong, you didn’t even read your own link, and it is much easier to just accuse me of lying and making up crap than admitting your own mistakes.

thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Holocene_Temperature_Vari ations.png

And another really easy thing you all do is bring up creationism. So just to let know I gave up on religion long ago because creationism made no sense to me. What I was being told about God and the world made no sense to me. The reason I became agnostic about religion was because I was SKEPTICAL and questioned all the time. So I approach all things in life as a skeptic. AGW is no different. When the science didn't make sense to me, I asked questions and researched both sides of the issue. I have learned a lot. And to be totally honest, I was believing the AGW scientists who told me that the sun had little affect on temperatures, so I never really looked into that aspect. Fun Facts has provided really valuable information about solar activity that I didn’t know before..thanks Fun Facts. The sun was like the final piece of the puzzle for me. Because now everything makes more sense to me.

So here is what you want me to believe. CO2 is increasing at alarming rates. CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures. The temperatures will go up about 0.2 C a decade. The poles will melt and the seas will rise. Now that there is a standstill in temperature rise for 15 years. the arctic sea ice is at the same place it was in 1993, the anartcic sea ice is growing at record rates, you want me to believe that CO2 is taking a break and will come roaring back. That doesn’t make sense. What really brings it together for me is the PDO, which is another thing scientists have been talking about for years. The last 30 years the PDO was in its warming phase and the solar activity was at a maximum. So the AGW hypothesis can work well in this scenario, but now that the PDO is in the cooling phase, you want me to believe that the effects of CO2 just go and hide somewhere, but will be back by 2030. So if the PDO and the sun override CO2 greenhouse effect in the cooling phase that tells me that the PDO and the sun were the primary drivers in the warming phase. You are asking me to defy reason by expecting me to believe CO2 effects are on hiatus. So my beliefs are the world has been warming in a natural cyclical way. The increased warmth in the 20th century was a combination of PDO, solar activity, and yes CO2, but not to any alarming degree that is reported...overestimation of CO2, underestimation of PDO and solar activity.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38715 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what you were trying to say. Heat is absorbed by the oceans at the surface. Depending on where at the surface the ocean itself will be more or less saline. Some areas of the ocean, like the earth, do not receive much rainfall other areas receive a lot of rainfall. Less rainfall and the surface is more saline, more rainfall and the fresh water tends to 'ride the surface' of the saline water because fresh water is less dense.
Once heat is absorbed at the surface you might think of it as getting a seat on a roller coaster. The heat received is transported throughout the system in horizontal and vertical patterns. As the heat is transported it is released into the atmosphere at various points and becomes more dense in the process.
Warm water is less dense than cold water. Low saline water is less dense than warm saline water. All the heated water will follow the same course but it makes a difference where the water got on the ride in how it impacts climate.
As the water cools and as evaporation makes the once fresh water more saline, the water becomes more dense and drops to lower levels of the ocean circulation.
La Nina is part of this process. When the pacific is in the negative phase of it's oscillation we experience more frequent and more impactful La Ninas.
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/...
Lesshypemorefact posted this earlier:

There is no 'decadal cycle' in air temperature or coorelation of the solar cycle with the temperature. The oceans and land have too much thermal mass to be affected by short term cycles such as the sunspot cycle except in the 200 year changes to amplitude which has enough effect to be seen. However, even that cycle is only a SMALL factor (< 0.2C) overall and on a downward trend. The cycle 24 and 25 are just data points in that cycle.

This paper was written in 2000. It was talking about the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle, which is an 80-year cycle, and the effects of the solar activity on patterns of global temperatures and ocean temperatures. This seems to be saying the opposite of LHMF.

The paper says the Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulates solar forcing on terrestrial phenomena's as evident from the pattern of Global temperature (both air and ocean temperatures). Solar Wolf- Gleissberg periodicity is marked in a wide range of terrestrial evidences since millions of years and is still at work. It is found that climatic fluctuations are induced at the turning points of such cycles.

That is the case, then 1997 is a year of climate fluctuation and a drop of global earth air and sea temperature is predicted soon similar to that happened during similar circumstances around 1800 and 1900, with increased El Nino and La Nina frequencies leading to wide spread flood -drought hazards.

http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

What do you know of this cycle?
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#38716 Sep 1, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why bother with the "tiresome, and boring, and devoid of any new ideas or insights". Why call names and denigrate the character of the 'guys' on which you have no influence.
Or is it because you have no influence that you call them names.
That's what I don't understand. If we are so tiring and boring, why waste their time with us?

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) 1 hr u Make Me Laugh 1,383,694
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 14 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