Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60013 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.

Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#41298 Nov 14, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years is nothing unusual – even despite the record El Niño year at the beginning of the period. It is still a quarter less than the warming trend since 1980, which is 0.16 °C per decade. But that’s not surprising when one starts with an extreme El Niño and ends with persistent La Niña conditions, and is also running through a particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum in the second half. As we often said, all this is within the usual variability around the long-term global warming trend and no cause for excited over-interpretation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
All this 'cut and paste' is a diversion from the point: It is a 'FACT' that CO2 is the MAIN driver of Global Warming and in the past 15+ years atmospheric CO2 has been rising at an Unprecedented Rate!!!

The theory is simple... and every science academy in the world agrees that temps must go up as CO2 goes up.
SpaceBlues

United States

#41299 Nov 14, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
All this 'cut and paste' is a diversion from the point: It is a 'FACT' that CO2 is the MAIN driver of Global Warming and in the past 15+ years atmospheric CO2 has been rising at an Unprecedented Rate!!!
The theory is simple... and every science academy in the world agrees that temps must go up as CO2 goes up.
You are simple in your ignorance.. A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.

Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.

These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences.

The results of this study also have bearing on some recent research. For example, correcting for the recent cool bias indicates that global surface temperatures are not as far from the average of climate model projections as we previously thought, and certainly fall within the range of individual climate model temperature simulations. Recent studies that concluded the global climate is a bit less sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect than previously believed may also have somewhat underestimated the actual climate sensitivity.

Do you get it? Of course, NOT. It is your ideology.

There are many factors that influence our climate change knowledge and attitudes, including education, scientific literacy and personal experience. Political ideology has a significant influence on climate change beliefs. A striking demonstration of the powerful effect of ideology is the finding that as education levels increased, Democrats became more concerned about climate change while Republicans became less concerned. Ideology rather than education is the hand at the wheel driving climate attitudes.
litesong

Everett, WA

#41300 Nov 14, 2013
cut n pasted wrote:
The theory is simple... and every science academy in the world agrees that temps must go up as CO2 goes up.
You are a silly goose. GHGs(not just CO2) slow heat flow away from Earth, but climate variations can readily overcome GHG ability to slowly increase Earth surface temperatures. However, seasonal variations cyclically rise & fall, whereas INCREASING GHGs INCREASE their ability to retard Earth heat flow.

Yes, it is a simple theory. However, toxic topix AGW deniers still don't understand, since toxic topix AGW deniers have no science & mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
litesong

Everett, WA

#41301 Nov 14, 2013
Al Gore wrote:
.....global warming believers are put in a lockbox.
toxic topix AGW deniers still don't understand, that they put their brains in a lockbox, since toxic topix AGW deniers have no science & mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#41302 Nov 14, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya never know, those tin foil hats you and Brian wear to block anything getting in just might be influencing the moon's gravitational pull. So it's feasible you guys could be affecting the tides!
how would aluminum effect gravity.... If I were wearing a tin foil hat....which I don't ?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#41303 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.
Are you a serial sensationalist?
LOL.
never! I leave that to the doomsday warmists. Why would I try to steal your " thunder", son? That's all you have!
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#41304 Nov 14, 2013
"Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively."

Yes, the latest ESTIMATES prove that as CO2 (the main driver in CC) goes up so do Temps. Further validation of the scientific consensus in AGW theory.
SpaceBlues

United States

#41305 Nov 14, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>never! I leave that to the doomsday warmists. Why would I try to steal your " thunder", son? That's all you have!
hahahaha awwwww

Aren't you a lovely sensationalist!
SpaceBlues

United States

#41306 Nov 14, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
"Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively."
Yes, the latest ESTIMATES prove that as CO2 (the main driver in CC) goes up so do Temps. Further validation of the scientific consensus in AGW theory.
Facts and numbers are of no interest to you!

What do you mean by your last sentence? Your ideology is peeking with its nose again..
Mothra

United States

#41307 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.[skepticalscience.com ]
The contradictions continue....

Bozo just posted a link lamenting short term trends, "Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years"

...then you cite what?

A study of a short term trend.

LOL
Mothra

United States

#41308 Nov 14, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
All this 'cut and paste' is a diversion from the point: It is a 'FACT' that CO2 is the MAIN driver of Global Warming and in the past 15+ years atmospheric CO2 has been rising at an Unprecedented Rate!!!
The theory is simple... and every science academy in the world agrees that temps must go up as CO2 goes up.
The contradictions continue....

Bozo just posted a link lamenting short term trends, "Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years"

...then you recite what?

A short term trend.

LOL
Mothra

United States

#41309 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are simple in your ignorance.. A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.
Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.
Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.
These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences.
The results of this study also have bearing on some recent research. For example, correcting for the recent cool bias indicates that global surface temperatures are not as far from the average of climate model projections as we previously thought, and certainly fall within the range of individual climate model temperature simulations. Recent studies that concluded the global climate is a bit less sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect than previously believed may also have somewhat underestimated the actual climate sensitivity.
Do you get it? Of course, NOT. It is your ideology.
There are many factors that influence our climate change knowledge and attitudes, including education, scientific literacy and personal experience. Political ideology has a significant influence on climate change beliefs. A striking demonstration of the powerful effect of ideology is the finding that as education levels increased, Democrats became more concerned about climate change while Republicans became less concerned. Ideology rather than education is the hand at the wheel driving climate attitudes.
The contradictions continue....

Bozo just posted a link lamenting short term trends, "Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years"

...then you cite what?

A study of a short term trend.

LOL
Mothra

United States

#41310 Nov 14, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
jackass loon
Mothra

United States

#41311 Nov 14, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
"Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively."
Yes, the latest ESTIMATES prove that as CO2 (the main driver in CC) goes up so do Temps. Further validation of the scientific consensus in AGW theory.
The contradictions continue....

Bozo just posted a link lamenting short term trends, "Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years"

...then you cite what?

A study of a short term trend.

LOL
Mothra

United States

#41312 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Facts and numbers are of no interest to you!
And being a global warming hypocrite means nothing to you.

Do your part... sit in the dark.

LOL
SpaceBlues

United States

#41313 Nov 14, 2013
Irrational troll ignored!
SpaceBlues

United States

#41314 Nov 14, 2013
This is a beautiful new study by an English and a Canadian:

Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.


Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.


Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.

You can also read about it in other sites such as

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
Mothra

United States

#41315 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
This is a beautiful new study by an English and a Canadian:
Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.
Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.
Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.
You can also read about it in other sites such as
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
Also from skeptical science;


How to use short timeframes to distort reality: a guide to cherrypicking

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking...

Hmmm... 1997 to date... sounds like a 'short term trend' analysis.

d'Oh!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#41316 Nov 14, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
The contradictions continue....
Bozo just posted a link lamenting short term trends, "Also; The public debate about the alleged “warming pause” was misguided from the outset, because far too much was read into a cherry-picked short-term trend. Now this debate has become completely baseless, because the trend of the last 15 or 16 years"
...then you cite what?
A study of a short term trend.
LOL
I suspect that you have a reading comprehension problem.
SpaceBlues

United States

#41317 Nov 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
This is a beautiful new study by an English and a Canadian:
Incomplete global coverage is a potential source of bias in global temperature reconstructions if the unsampled regions are not uniformly distributed over the planet's surface. The widely used HadCRUT4 dataset covers on average about 84% of the globe over recent decades, with the unsampled regions being concentrated at the poles and over Africa. Three existing reconstructions with near-global coverage are examined, each suggesting that HadCRUT4 is subject to bias due to its treatment of unobserved regions.
Two alternative approaches for reconstructing global temperatures are explored, one based on an optimal interpolation algorithm and the other a hybrid method incorporating additional information from the satellite temperature record. The methods are validated on the basis of their skill at reconstructing omitted sets of observations. Both methods provide superior results than excluding the unsampled regions, with the hybrid method showing particular skill around the regions where no observations are available.
Temperature trends are compared for the hybrid global temperature reconstruction and the raw HadCRUT4 data. The widely quoted trend since 1997 in the hybrid global reconstruction is two and a half times greater than the corresponding trend in the coverage-biased HadCRUT4 data. Coverage bias causes a cool bias in recent temperatures relative to the late 1990s which increases from around 1998 to the present. Trends starting in 1997 or 1998 are particularly biased with respect to the global trend. The issue is exacerbated by the strong El Niño event of 1997-1998, which also tends to suppress trends starting during those years.
You can also read about it in other sites such as
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...
See the abstract, folks.

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) 2 min RealDave 1,394,459
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 36 min Cheftell 70,700
News Connecticut News - State, National and Local Ne... (May '07) Jun 22 ladyslipper 156
"OX" cover band from the 70s. (Oct '10) Jun 22 Bill Suchy 14
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Jun 20 Homeboynot 20,366
CAR Accident on Friday April 22, 2016 Apr '16 MarcusT20073 1
In The War on Police Traffic Stops Have Become ... (Aug '15) Dec '15 Anthony Wall 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages