Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30925 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28648 Jun 22, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't believe them, right?
I'm suggesting no such thing.
Believe whatever you like, you have choices, not that it matters what you believe.
PHD

Houston, TX

#28649 Jun 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm suggesting no such thing.
Believe whatever you like, you have choices, not that it matters what you believe.
Your not in a position to suggest anything. It wouldn't matter dirtling your on the bottom.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28650 Jun 22, 2012
PHDumbo wrote:
Your[sic] not in a position
You're or you are not in a position.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#28651 Jun 22, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientists? All? Where did you hear that? The data does not support the politically motivated denial of the fact that global warming is happening. Get your ducks in a row and show us where the data does not support global warming.
That's just another idiot who's been Gored.

That's just an ignorant statement with no back-up.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28652 Jun 22, 2012
DumBo wrote:
It's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that It's crystal clear that it's crystal clear that..........
It's crystal clear that you're a nutter........
I Am DIGITAP

Alhambra, CA

#28653 Jun 22, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just another idiot who's been Gored.
That's just an ignorant statement with no back-up.
WHY did YEW LET the OIL FORTUNE of AL GORE failed PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

DRIVE YEW INTO SELLING YOUR SOUL? YEW WANT TO GIVE AL GORE MONEY BY TAXING THE AIR YOU BREATHE OUT

WHEN HIS V.E.R.Y. B.U.S.I.N.E.S.S. IS G.I.N.N.I.N.G. UP A.L.A.R.M.

that THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANY OIL?

H.E. IS AN O.I.L. M.A.N.
You ignorant HICK

WHY didn't YEW or ANYWUN YEW NO
REALIZE Uh TREE AINT uh SPESHUL TREEMOMITUR?

WHY didn't YEW or ANYWUN YEW NO
REALIZE about L.I.E.B.I.G'S. L.A.W?
LIEBIG'S LAW, the WUN THAT SAYS PLANTS CAINT GRO NO FASTUR THAN THUH WERST UV IT'S CONDISHUNS
ALLOWS?

W.T.F. did YOU GO to SCHOOL?

WHY didn't you REALIZE WHAT was UP WHEN YOU LEARNED that AL GORE'S PERSONAL
FORTUNE
IS
DERIVED from
OCCIDENTAL OIL,
the T.H.I.R.D. L.A.R.G.E.S.T. OIL CONGLOMERATE on E.A.R.T.H?

You IGNORANT DARWINIAN DOGtuRD: yew THAWT MAGIC GAS
HAD DUN MADE US ALL HAFTa SHUT DOWN SOCIETY

but IT WAS JUST AL GORE DRIVIN THUH PRICE of OIL UP
to PUNISH YER STEWPID A$$
FER NOT UHLEKtinG
HIM.

You ignorant dribble down a skinny Somali goat's leg.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#28654 Jun 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>It's crystal clear that you're a nutter........
Have you changed your Depends?(That is not a hypothetical question.)
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#28655 Jun 22, 2012
JEFF BARNARD-AP

The West Coast will see an ocean several inches higher in coming decades, with most of California expected to get sea levels a half foot higher by 2030, according a report released Friday.

The study by the National Research Council gives planners their best look yet at how melting ice sheets and warming oceans associated with climate change will raise sea levels along the country's Pacific coast. It is generally consistent with earlier global projections, but takes a closer look at California, Oregon and Washington.

Although the six inches expected for California by 2030 seem minor, the report estimated that sea levels there will be three feet higher by 2100. About 72 percent of the state's coast is covered by sandy cliffs, and the rest include beaches, sand dunes, bays and estuaries.

"Rising seas increase the risk of coastal flooding, storm surge inundation, coastal erosion and shoreline retreat, and wetland loss," the report said. "The cities and infrastructure that line many coasts are already vulnerable to damage from storms, which is likely to increase as sea level continues to rise and inundate areas further inland."

Northern California, Oregon and Washington can expect a less dramatic increase — about four inches by 2030 and two feet by 2100 — because seismic activity is causing land to rise north of the San Andreas Fault, offsetting increasing sea levels, and drop south of it. The fault runs out to sea at Cape Mendocino.

The most immediate threat over the next few decades will come from periodic ocean-warming El Nino events, said Gary Griggs, director of the Institute for Marine Sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz, who was one of the scientists assembled by the council to produce the report.

"During those events, sea level is elevated as much as a foot above normal and then we've got typically larger waves coming in with the high tides," particularly in the Northwest, he said.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#28656 Jun 22, 2012
In a study that could solidify the trend toward construction of gigantic windmills, scientists have concluded that the larger the wind turbine, the greener the electricity it produces. Their report appears in ACS’ journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Marloes Caduff and colleagues point out that wind power is an increasingly popular source of electricity. It provides almost 2 percent of global electricity worldwide, a figure expected to approach 10 percent by 2020. The size of the turbines also is increasing. One study shows that the average size of commercial turbines has grown 10-fold in the last 30 years, from diameters of 50 feet in 1980 to nearly 500 feet today. On the horizon: super-giant turbines approaching 1,000 feet in diameter. The authors wanted to determine whether building larger turbines makes wind energy more or less environmentally friendly.

Their study showed that bigger turbines do produce greener electricity — for two main reasons. First, manufacturers now have the knowledge, experience and technology to build big wind turbines with great efficiency. Second, advanced materials and designs permit the efficient construction of large turbine blades that harness more wind without proportional increases in their mass or the masses of the tower and the nacelle that houses the generator. That means more clean power without large increases in the amount of material needed for construction or fuel needed for transportation.

American Chemical Society

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#28657 Jun 22, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
The West Coast will see an ocean several inches higher in coming decades, with most of California expected to get sea levels a half foot higher by 2030, according a report released Friday.
Really, a half a foot by 2030? Let's do the math, that's 150 mm over the next 18 years, comes to over 8 mm/yr and checking with the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I find that sea level is rising at some California locations and falling in others. Here's the list of California stations reporting over the last 30 years:

Stataion ......... mm/yr

ALAMEDA .........-1.14
PORT SAN LUIS ...-0.49
MONTEREY ........-0.22
SAN FRANCISCO ...-0.12
POINT REYES ...... 0.42
SAN DIEGO ........ 0.43
LOS ANGELES ...... 0.55
LA JOLLA ......... 0.67
SANTA MONICA ..... 0.89

Average .......... 0.11

As determined by Excel formula =SLOPE(values,years)
gcaveman1 wrote:
Although the six inches expected for California by 2030 seem minor, the report estimated that sea levels there will be three feet higher by 2100.
When is this magical acceleration in the rate of sea level rise going to occur?

You guys never run the numbers.
I Am Digitap

Los Angeles, CA

#28658 Jun 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, a half a foot by 2030? Let's do the math, that's 150 mm over the next 18 years, comes to over 8 mm/yr and checking with the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I find that sea level is rising at some California locations and falling in others. Here's the list of California stations reporting over the last 30 years:
Stataion ......... mm/yr
ALAMEDA .........-1.14
PORT SAN LUIS ...-0.49
MONTEREY ........-0.22
SAN FRANCISCO ...-0.12
POINT REYES ...... 0.42
SAN DIEGO ........ 0.43
LOS ANGELES ...... 0.55
LA JOLLA ......... 0.67
SANTA MONICA ..... 0.89
Average .......... 0.11
As determined by Excel formula =SLOPE(values,years)
<quoted text>
When is this magical acceleration in the rate of sea level rise going to occur?
You guys never run the numbers.
When Al Gore is satisfied he's made enough money promoting the 'MAGIC GAS, MAGIC MATH, MAGIC TREEMOMITURS' and
us having to
GO AHEAD AND INSTALL HIS POLICIES in SPITE of the ELECTION..
and when his closest friends start being indicted and threatening to tell how Al manipulated markets as part of a revenge scheme for losing the election.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#28659 Jun 23, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
Really, a half a foot by 2030? Let's do the math, that's 150 mm over the next 18 years, comes to over 8 mm/yr and checking with the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I find that sea level is rising at some California locations and falling in others. Here's the list of California stations reporting over the last 30 years:
Stataion ......... mm/yr
ALAMEDA .........-1.14
PORT SAN LUIS ...-0.49
MONTEREY ........-0.22
SAN FRANCISCO ...-0.12
POINT REYES ...... 0.42
SAN DIEGO ........ 0.43
LOS ANGELES ...... 0.55
LA JOLLA ......... 0.67
SANTA MONICA ..... 0.89
Average .......... 0.11
As determined by Excel formula =SLOPE(values,years)
<quoted text>
When is this magical acceleration in the rate of sea level rise going to occur?
You guys never run the numbers.
We ought to excuse the carpenter, he's only copy pasting stuff he reads, with never a thought to actually check its validity.
If he reads that sea level will rise six inches by 2030, it must be so.

Your figures are accurate, but as sea level rise doesn't look like accelerating any time soon, so a rise of 8 mm/yr won't be anywhere near enough to fill the bill.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#28660 Jun 23, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, a half a foot by 2030? Let's do the math, that's 150 mm over the next 18 years, comes to over 8 mm/yr and checking with the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I find that sea level is rising at some California locations and falling in others. Here's the list of California stations reporting over the last 30 years:
Stataion ......... mm/yr
ALAMEDA .........-1.14
PORT SAN LUIS ...-0.49
MONTEREY ........-0.22
SAN FRANCISCO ...-0.12
POINT REYES ...... 0.42
SAN DIEGO ........ 0.43
LOS ANGELES ...... 0.55
LA JOLLA ......... 0.67
SANTA MONICA ..... 0.89
Average .......... 0.11
As determined by Excel formula =SLOPE(values,years)
<quoted text>
When is this magical acceleration in the rate of sea level rise going to occur?
You guys never run the numbers.
http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/wp-cont...
IAmDigitap

Los Angeles, CA

#28661 Jun 23, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I DUN DISCUVERD AWULL N MY GORE CHERCH CAWS I FEEL ENRICHT!
You've got the morality of a foster parent who'd slip rattlesnakes into children's beds then act bereft.
Till
the
next
time.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#28662 Jun 23, 2012
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
The tide gauge data I put up for those California stations is real. They give the best indication of what the relationship is between the local shoreline and the ocean has been. The satellite data you put up does not. But since you put it up, here once again, is that same chart with a trend line that shows that acceleration of sea level rise is negative:
http://i39.tinypic.com/nr14bq.jpg
And if you extrapolate that trend line out, it looks like this:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2saytc4.jpg
That extrapolation isn't a prediction on my part, but it is an indication that predictions claiming acceleration in seal level rise, as that article would have you believe, are baseless.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#28663 Jun 23, 2012
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
.... not that it matters what you believe.
It's important what "steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling", who is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig believes. However, with his lack of a hi skule deegreee & his errors of as great as 500 million TIMES, he does NOT comprehend that his thoughts drag him towards error & vileness.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#28664 Jun 23, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, a half a foot by 2030? Let's do the math, that's 150 mm over the next 18 years, comes to over 8 mm/yr and checking with the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
I find that sea level is rising at some California locations and falling in others. Here's the list of California stations reporting over the last 30 years:
Stataion ......... mm/yr
ALAMEDA .........-1.14
PORT SAN LUIS ...-0.49
MONTEREY ........-0.22
SAN FRANCISCO ...-0.12
POINT REYES ...... 0.42
SAN DIEGO ........ 0.43
LOS ANGELES ...... 0.55
LA JOLLA ......... 0.67
SANTA MONICA ..... 0.89
Average .......... 0.11
As determined by Excel formula =SLOPE(values,years)
<quoted text>
When is this magical acceleration in the rate of sea level rise going to occur?
You guys never run the numbers.
They never do the math or any thinking. Six inces by 2030 means that it would be an inch every three years. So what will they do when it has only risen about 10 mm in that time. And that is the rate stays the same.

The only thing I can see making that come true is of they have that big quake and most of california slides into the sea like they were talking about back in the seventies.
Xavier

United States

#28665 Jun 23, 2012
I don't.
Fun Facts

Owens Cross Roads, AL

#28666 Jun 23, 2012
gcaveman1 wrote:
JEFF BARNARD-AP
The West Coast will see an ocean several inches higher in coming decades, with most of California expected to get sea levels a half foot higher by 2030, according a report released Friday.

The most immediate threat over the next few decades will come from periodic ocean-warming El Nino events, said Gary Griggs, director of the Institute for Marine Sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz, who was one of the scientists assembled by the council to produce the report.
"During those events, sea level is elevated as much as a foot above normal and then we've got typically larger waves coming in with the high tides," particularly in the Northwest, he said.
Won't have to worry too much about El Ninos for the next 25 or so years. The PDO has gone negative and solar activity is in the tank. The El Ninos can have a big impact, but there are two major factors which determine the strength of the El Ninos.

The PDO is negative and when this conditions exists, El Ninos are weaker, less frequent and are of shorter duration. The negative PDO has the opposite effect on the La Ninas. La Ninas are more impactful and are more frequent during the negative phase of the PDO.

Solar activity impacts the strength of the PDO. The period of global warming saw the highest levels of solar activity in the last 400 years. This high level of solar activity correlated with the time period of the positive PDO. The result was more powerful and more frequent El Ninos.

Now the PDO is negative and solar activity in very low.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

The El Ninos will be less impactful during the next 25 years than they have been in the years since 1977.
kal

Richland, WA

#28667 Jun 23, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>We ought to excuse the carpenter, he's only copy pasting stuff he reads, with never a thought to actually check its validity.
If he reads that sea level will rise six inches by 2030, it must be so.
Your figures are accurate, but as sea level rise doesn't look like accelerating any time soon, so a rise of 8 mm/yr won't be anywhere near enough to fill the bill.
oh good 'earthling', another dire prediction. here is an intresting article on the condition causing global warming caused by man.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/finally...

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Solar Power Actually Made Global Warming Worse,... 17 min tina anne 10
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 1 hr tina anne 4,726
News Trump picks ally of fossil fuel industry to lea... 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 10
Global Cooling (Apr '15) 6 hr Into The Night 2,129
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 hr Into The Night 62,343
News Megacities key to reaching global climate objec... 7 hr Build the wall 2
The 'CO2 Myths' Behind "Contemporary Neo-Orthod... 9 hr don t drink the k... 4
More from around the web