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

Full story: Newsday 49,255
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#42333 Dec 31, 2013
motheaten mothballs wrote:
The zealot.....
.....says the toxic topix AGW denier.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42334 Dec 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
......
Loon.

Go troll elsewhere.
Abolish The Fed

Brooklyn, NY

#42335 Jan 1, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
Like I said in the deniers world let the grandchildren fry, we don't care we wont be around.
The Herald in Scotland Wednesday 1 January 2014
----------
Global temperatures could increase by up to 5C by 2100, according to a study that suggests the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.
By 2200, the world could be 8C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, say scientists.
The study corrected errors in calculating the effect of clouds on global warming.
Lead scientist Professor Steven Sherwood said: "Sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, but what we are finding is the mistakes are being made by models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."
So you will have to buy carbon credits from blood & gore.

Were you always this naive?

"Could"
Sounds like a drug commercial.
Abolish The Fed

Brooklyn, NY

#42336 Jan 1, 2014
Coal is King wrote:
Voices from the coalfields.
From Clay Center, KY:
"China, India and third world countries are burning coal and will continue to do so, that is not in dispute, easy to confirm.
It is a scientific fact that the carbon and other elements China, India and the 3rd world countries pump into the atmosphere does not stay in their countries.
The Kyoto Protocol and our stupid EPA regs might have made more since it the burning of coal was banned world wide and every country had to stop burning it. As it stands the largest polluters will be able to burn as much coal as they want and will continue to increase the amount of coal they use.
What good does it do for the President and the EPA to stop our coal production and shut down our coal fired power plants when others are still pumping carbon into the atmosphere? Why are we the ones destroying our economy by driving electrical prices beyond what we will be able to afford with no viable alternative energy in sight? Why are we destroying our local economy and the countries economy for something that is not making one iota's worth of difference?
I know the big plan it to make coal so expensive that the renewables will be able to get a foothold in the energy market and for the government to rake in billions from the carbon tax. Thing is the renewable energy sources are not doable at this time and we are shutting down coal fired plants with no power generation from alternative sources to replace the Power We Lose. Yes they can shut down Louisa and AEP can buy power off the grid at a higher rate but how many coal fired plants can you shut down with nothing on line to replace the power you lose.
It is like a firing squad formed in a circle! The most absolute stupidest concept ever developed by a left wing Democrat. You keep taking power off line provided by coal and hoping power will become so expensive that the alternative sources will come on line. That is a dangerous GD gamble if no other renewable sources are made ready to step in as we lose coal fired powered power plants.
It takes years just to get a nuclear plant approved then 10 years or more to build one. It takes years to get a hydroelectric dam approved and years to build one. You can't have solar when the sun don't shine and you can't put the grid on batteries at night when it don't. Just a stupid concept that no one understands how it got this far with anyone with any common sense not stopping this nonsense before he destroys the country.
He is not making a nickels worth of difference on carbon emissions into the atmosphere because he can't make India and China quit burning it.
He will not reap billions in carbon tax because it is just cheaper for a utility to just shut down the coal fired plant and say to hell with it. He will not see any of the renewables make a big amount of difference because it will take billions of dollars to develop them at a time when he is taking billions out of the economy by raising the power rates beyond any level that will support economic growth.
That's the thing with the liberal tree huggers, they are real good at campaigning, controlling the media and the message, getting their left wing environmentalist elected but never gave any thought as to how they are going to make this carbon tax work or how they can shut down all the coal plants and still have electrical power before the renewables come on line.
If you think ObamaCare was a major screw up and a mess just watch the next 10 years when the carbon tax scheme and the war on coal blows up in their face."
There is a war on coal because its cheap and abundant.
Certain people want to have the monopoly on energy and Obama is their slick salesman.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42337 Jan 1, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
Like I said in the deniers world let the grandchildren fry, we don't care we wont be around.
The Herald in Scotland Wednesday 1 January 2014
----------
Global temperatures could increase by up to 5C by 2100, according to a study that suggests the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought.
By 2200, the world could be 8C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, say scientists.
The study corrected errors in calculating the effect of clouds on global warming.
Lead scientist Professor Steven Sherwood said: "Sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, but what we are finding is the mistakes are being made by models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."
So climate models that made less dire predictions are actually more inaccurate than the ones that make more extreme predictions even though none of them are actually right?

Yikes!

This is science?

The sky is falling! And faster than we thought!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42338 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to take everyone with a grain of salt...I'm a skeptic.
There are people saying we've passed the tipping point and that we may be extinct in 200 years.
I'm hoping they are not right.
Unfortunately: "There is evidence that these forces are starting to be set in motion. This has major consequences for the future of human kind as climate change progresses."

When changes are noticed by the public while happening, it's too late like a burning house.

P.S. A happy and healthy 2014!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42339 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So climate models that made less dire predictions are actually more inaccurate than the ones that make more extreme predictions even though none of them are actually right?
Yikes!
This is science?
The sky is falling! And faster than we thought!
The article is referring to the basic physical processes that determine how much warming will occur over century periods.

Not the processes that determine how much warming will occur over decadal period.

Processes that incidentally the models do capture but not predict well over short periods.

A not so subtle distinction that is obviously invisible to an ignorant lout like you.

Do us favour: go and comment on a subject you do have a clue about.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42340 Jan 1, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The article is referring to the basic physical processes that determine how much warming will occur over century periods.
Not the processes that determine how much warming will occur over decadal period.
Processes that incidentally the models do capture but not predict well over short periods.
A not so subtle distinction that is obviously invisible to an ignorant lout like you.
Do us favour: go and comment on a subject you do have a clue about.
Curious.... he doesn't make distinction made between decadal vs. century predictions, but you've found it!

Abstract:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n74...

Oh wait! He does say that research has been going on for decades, but that doesn't jive with your assertion, does it?

Bottom line, is this "model" says all the other "models" are wrong.

So you've been citing sources with wrong models in the past, yet still insist they were right (at the time), and because of this study, more so?

Yikes!

Put the cart before the horse and prove it won't pull it.

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42341 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you actually researched this subject or are you just swallowing the Hannity/Beck/Watts line?
Other than yourself, are there any other authorities you can cite to prove any of the above? Or are you just another blathering idiot on the Internets?
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here. Just like the earth is round and the sun shines. Everything I have said is something a nine year old can understand.

The arrogant snobbish carbon-bilking elite would never display anything like this.

Anyways, let's return to reality and not your corporate fiction.

Headlines today:

*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.

*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.

*Global warming on ice

*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.

*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.

My God, you liberals are so FUNNY! This new year is starting with more madness on steroids displayed by you globalist worshippers. How is it going with activism against China or Russia you fools? Typical to whine, but not dare to challenge the ones who REALLY burn fossil fuels.

Now, if the blizzard lasts, these fools may get an American super-duper "carbon generating" ice breaker, or even better a NUCLEAR one. That should give half the libs on that shop a stroke..

Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh

LMAOROFL, this is too funny...

“Grow the power within yourself”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#42342 Jan 1, 2014
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a war on coal because its cheap and abundant.
Certain people want to have the monopoly on energy and Obama is their slick salesman.
Correct my friend.. This IS the penultimate reason the "liberal" fascists want to control this. This is also why statist creep like tolls, gas taxes, car taxes and ticketing, because they know how this limits people's freedoms.

Fortunately, I know hundreds of people getting just as awake as me and you, my friend. The international fraudsters and liars that are trying to destroy us all will never stop trying, so let's stick together. There is no more war on coals than there is war on poverty . Only slogans from liberals to destroy people and enslave us all within their corporate abyss.

Too bad these people always can count on 30-40% of pure takers to run and vote for them, by promising to rip off the rest of us. Whether you make 200 or 10 bucks an hour, we are all dupees in this world of globalist liars and their mindless zombie cohorts.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42343 Jan 1, 2014
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here. Just like the earth is round and the sun shines. Everything I have said is something a nine year old can understand.
The arrogant snobbish carbon-bilking elite would never display anything like this.
Anyways, let's return to reality and not your corporate fiction.
Headlines today:
*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.
*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.
*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.
My God, you liberals are so FUNNY! This new year is starting with more madness on steroids displayed by you globalist worshippers. How is it going with activism against China or Russia you fools? Typical to whine, but not dare to challenge the ones who REALLY burn fossil fuels.
Now, if the blizzard lasts, these fools may get an American super-duper "carbon generating" ice breaker, or even better a NUCLEAR one. That should give half the libs on that shop a stroke..
Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh
LMAOROFL, this is too funny...
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#42344 Jan 1, 2014
rotten vegetable tiger wrote:
*..... ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
* stuck in ice.
AGW scientists predicted Antarctic sea ice would increase in 2002, re-confirmed in 2005, & has occurred, as toxic topix AGW deniers like to point out, as if it wasn't an AGW scientific prediction.

You forgot the statement, "...Arctic sea ice has recovered by 60%" after the 2012 Arctic sea ice low record, of which toxic topix AGW deniers gloat that 2013 is so cold! However, it wasn't 60% as crowed about by toxic topix AGW deniers. Multiple errors designed such by toxic AGW deniers, covered the fact that Arctic sea ice AREA only recovered by 35%. A more accurate measure, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME compared to average monthly sea ice VOLUME measures since 2010, show only a gain of 15% in volume. Up to December 1 2013, the year, again which toxic topix AGW deniers gloated was so cold, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME is only 7% greater than the monthly measures since 2010.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#42345 Jan 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
No science is fact based, liberal science is conjecture on top of conjecture equivalent to double and triple hearsay.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42346 Jan 1, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I understand, science is liberal. Anti science is conservative.
Your understanding of "thinking" is flawed.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42347 Jan 1, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
AGW scientists predicted Antarctic sea ice would increase in 2002, re-confirmed in 2005, & has occurred, as toxic topix AGW deniers like to point out, as if it wasn't an AGW scientific prediction.
You forgot the statement, "...Arctic sea ice has recovered by 60%" after the 2012 Arctic sea ice low record, of which toxic topix AGW deniers gloat that 2013 is so cold! However, it wasn't 60% as crowed about by toxic topix AGW deniers. Multiple errors designed such by toxic AGW deniers, covered the fact that Arctic sea ice AREA only recovered by 35%. A more accurate measure, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME compared to average monthly sea ice VOLUME measures since 2010, show only a gain of 15% in volume. Up to December 1 2013, the year, again which toxic topix AGW deniers gloated was so cold, monthly Arctic sea ice VOLUME is only 7% greater than the monthly measures since 2010.
Warmists have "science" that predicts all kinds of weather events.

A few years back when hurricanes were more frequent TA DA! "science" that says so.

Now with none to report, TA DA! again... "science" that says so.

So is the past "science" wrong?

Nope... just shelved until that particular event appears again.

But offer "skeptical" science? Warmists will go to all ends to "debunk" it.

As for the Arcic sea ice, isn't it a good thing to have recovered from such a low amount from last year by any amount?

Run along... your writing is tiresome. No one takes you seriously.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42348 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious.... he doesn't make distinction made between decadal vs. century predictions, but you've found it!
Abstract:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing.
You might want to look up what those big words mean.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#42349 Jan 1, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey look everybody! The zealot is answering the question with a question then lashes out with a whole lot of nonsense..
Gee... convincing isn't he?
A lot more convincing than you.

Have you found out what the building/wind generator ratio is yet?

I thought not.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#42350 Jan 1, 2014
VeganTiger wrote:
<quoted text>
"Authorities"? I am giving you some statements here.

Headlines today:
*Global warming activists still stuck on inconvenient ice.
*Globull warming activists ship still stuck on heavy Antarctic ice.
*Global warming on ice
*Global warming activists require record amounts of fossil fuel to get out of waters where melted iceberg is blocking them.
*Global warming researcher gets stuck in ice.

Hahaheheheheheqhhihihih ihhohohohohohohohoh
LMAOROFL, this is too funny...
So, your statements don't have to be factual; you just make them up all by yourself.

Where did you get these headlines? Is there a prize for how many sources I can guess right?

No sources. No scientific sites. Just another idiot on the Internets.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#42351 Jan 1, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot more convincing than you.
.
Zealots are always sure of themselves.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42352 Jan 1, 2014
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
No science is fact based, liberal science is conjecture on top of conjecture equivalent to double and triple hearsay.
I have never heard of "liberal science". LOL That must be a buzz phrase the cons use to support their anti-science agenda. How does that compare with "conservative science"? Perhaps Senator Inhofe can clear that up......

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min No Surprize 1,154,604
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Yumpin Yimminy 68,897
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Frijoles 71,138
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 4 hr Pearl Jam 307,010
Praying That Perez Vigil Was A Bad Dream (Mar '09) 12 hr John J Thomas 48
Debate: Trayvon Martin - East Hartford, CT (Apr '12) Sun scorpiochic 3
Do you really think that East Hartford is a "sa... (Sep '11) Sun scorpiochic 9
Wethersfield Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:24 pm PST