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

Full story: Newsday 49,177
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33366 Jan 3, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
Oh noes!

Another denier too dumb to understand science!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33367 Jan 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh noes!
Another denier too dumb to understand science!
Or someone who knows enough to know what cannot be true. That climate change is natural and has little to do with man.

The one who is in denial is Fair Game.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33368 Jan 3, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Or someone who knows enough to know what cannot be true.
teddy at least seems to have a couple of brain cells floating around, although he doesn't seem to have used them for a couple of decades.

You on the other hand are an unmitigated moron.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33369 Jan 3, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I? Or are you the one who is lying?
Yes, you are. No, I'm NOT.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33370 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, you are. No, I'm NOT.
Said the two year old mental midget. We see that the tina gave you another spanking.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#33371 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Did you notice nobody commented on your reference?
Thanks for publishing it. Any particular point to notice?
I hadn't really noticed, but thanks for noting. Pretty much as one would expect, really - for all the posing and cock-measuring contests being indulged in on this thread over the "SCIENCE!!!," the complete lack of intelligent response to a post linking some actual climate science literature just goes to the prove how little the participants here actually care about the real science or rational, objective exchange. No - most of the folks here are more concerned with hurling partisan political, ideogical, theological talking points at each other (while piously pretending it's all about the SCIENCE!! of course ...)

(Case in point - I see the one response my post did attract was our friend Fair Game's reactionary alpha-Nerd bark of "DENIER!!" That's all it takes to be damned as a "denier!!" in FG's reactionary mind, it seems - just post a link to a piece of scientific literature without any comment. How ... DENIALIST of me. Mea maxima culpa. I shall now go write out the Arrhenius equation 1000 times in penance.)

Points to notice? A couple mildly interesting ones - nothing earth-shaking.

I found the number of proof-reading errors a bit off-putting, e.g. this howler -(T data from 25 stations from 1949-1998 show) "... a mean annual temperature increase for all stations in the range of 1.0 - 2.2 deg C." That works out to a total average T increase of between 49.0 and 107.8 deg C over the period. Yikes!

This was compensated for by the authors' actually having the courage and scientific integrity, in describing the period of cooling evidenced over the 1st decade of this century, to actually say, "At this time it cannot be decided whether this is a climatic shift during the first decade of the 21st century or if it represents decadal-interdecadal variability." How refreshing.

No real surprises - the recent cooling trend is correlated with, and largely attributable to, a negative shift in PDO number over the same period, less so with sunspot number. The over-arching global warming trend is still visible in Temps at the northern-most station, Barrow, North of the Brooks Range and isolated from the avection/circulation mechanisms the authors posit is driving the recent regional cooling trend over the rest of Alaska.

For all the politically-motivated hoo-hah over long-term global climate trends, the paper reminded me that it is regional and short-term variations and variability in climate that have the most immediate and direct effects on people, habitats, plants, and animals.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33372 Jan 3, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
...the complete lack of intelligent response to a post linking some actual climate science literature just goes to the prove how little the participants here actually care about the real science or rational, objective exchange.
Unfortunately you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the literature you post.

You seem to think it is in some way inconvenient to the theory of AGW, when in fact it isn't.

All you demonstrate is your total ignorance of the science involved. What rational exchange can one have with a fool?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33373 Jan 3, 2013
PHD wrote:
...tina gave you another spanking.
A spnaking by tina seems to be a common theme in your posts. A phudd phantasy.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33374 Jan 3, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
This was compensated for by the authors' actually having the courage and scientific integrity, in describing the period of cooling evidenced over the 1st decade of this century*, to actually say, "At this time it cannot be decided whether this is a climatic shift during the first decade of the 21st century or if it represents decadal-interdecadal variability." How refreshing.
* A cooling trend in Alaska, you fucktard.

Alaska != the world.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#33375 Jan 3, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Am I? Or are you the one who is lying?
If it's any consolation, Teener, I don't think you're lying.

I think you're too stupid to know how to lie.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33376 Jan 3, 2013
I think you're too stupid
to know how to lie.
You write posts on Topix
that painfully die.
But you insist regularly
to cash the big lie.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33377 Jan 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the literature you post.
Unfortunately you haven't demonstrated any qualifications to render such a judgement.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>You seem to think it is in some way inconvenient to the theory of AGW.
A bizarre notion. Please cite your supporting evidence.

My contending theory is that you are simply indulging in paranoic delusions and projection to assuage your internal feelings of inferiority and Need to be Right.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>All you demonstrate is your total ignorance of the science involved. What rational exchange can one have with a fool?
TOTAL ignorance? Dear me. Rather sweeping and un-scientific of you, don't you think?

Cite your evidence of my "ignorance" on which specific points of scientific understanding this time, please.

"What rational exchange can one have with a fool?" Oh - about the same rational exchange one can have with an arrogant self-important prick, I should think ...

Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33378 Jan 3, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
* A cooling trend in Alaska, you fucktard.
Alaska != the world.
"You fucktard?" Really? Do you kiss you Mom with that mouth?

Shame on you, Sir.

Now - if there was some intelligent point in your post, it's marvellously obscure.

Care to spin again?
paddyomalley

Austin, TX

#33379 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
All deniers are dumb liars.
Typical leftist. No facts, just name callers.
paddyomalley

Austin, TX

#33380 Jan 3, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>OK. Have you heard of the greenhouse gas effect as a fact?
There you go.
Are you saying 630 billion years ago, the greenhouse effect began melting the ice of whatever ice age was ending? Very good. Now tell me what part man had in causing that greenhouse effect? How many fords and chevys were on the road? How many miles of highways were on earth at that time? In other words, what part in melting the glaciers 2.5 billion years ago during the end of the first Ice Age did man play and every Ice Age since? You don't have to account for the dozens of thaws and refreezes, just the Ice Age and the major thaw. I suggest man had nothing to do with any of it and for anyone to think what ever man does now is going to stop or start a thaw and freeze is goofy.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33381 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you haven't demonstrated any qualifications to render such a judgement.
Anyone with the slightest understanding of climate science, or prepared to do a little work to acquire such an understanding, could spot why you have misunderstood the paper if you think it casts doubt on AGW.

But not, you have no such understanding, and are too intellectually lazy and arrogant to acquire it.

Apparently you proved how smart you are in some other field years ago, so your conclusions about AGW based what you believe the evidence for it is must be correct.

A delusion held by many other arrogant old fools on the web.

The climate is a complex system. It does not warm uniformly. Some parts warm more, some parts warm less, some parts can even get colder for decadal period.

To point to the paper you did and laugh as you did show an utter ignorance of the science.

And it shows you in your ignorance to be a utter fool, old man.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33383 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately you haven't demonstrated any qualifications to render such a judgement.
Shall we try reading the paper and see if the authors agree with your understanding of their work, i.e. that it is somehow inconvenient to AGW theory?
In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska [14], as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again.
No, they don't seem to.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33384 Jan 4, 2013
Let's have a look at what the usual suspects are saying about this:
What global warming? Alaska is headed for an ice age as scientists report state's steady temperature decline.
Daily Mail.
Forget global warming – Alaska headed for an ice age.
Ice Age Now.
EPA Lying About Alaska.
Steven Goddard.
Report:‘Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age’
Anthony Watts.
Teddy R wrote:
Pretty much as one would expect, really - for all the posing and cock-measuring contests being indulged in on this thread over the "SCIENCE!!!," the complete lack of intelligent response to a post linking some actual climate science literature just goes to the prove how little the participants here actually care about the real science or rational, objective exchange.
What sort of rational, objective exchange can one have with people who misrepresent and distort the science?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33385 Jan 4, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
This was compensated for by the authors' actually having the courage and scientific integrity, in describing the period of cooling evidenced over the 1st decade of this century, to actually say, "At this time it cannot be decided whether this is a climatic shift during the first decade of the 21st century or if it represents decadal-interdecadal variability." How refreshing.
It's only "refreshing" for you because your understanding of AGW is based entirely on lazy straw man arguments.

The question posed by the authors is entirely familiar to anybody who pays attention to the science.
In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.
Nothing here to suggest a coming ice age in Alaska.

Nothing here to suggest that science has previously ignored natural variability and effects.

What it shows is that the reason we understand climate change, including natural variability, is because of the work of scientists.

The reason the public may not understand this is because of misinformers like the Daily Mail, Goddard and Watts.

The reason you didn't understand it is your intellectual laziness and arrogance.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33386 Jan 4, 2013
Fairy lame wrote:
<quoted text>
A spnaking by tina seems to be a common theme in your posts. A phudd phantasy.
Just trying to hand you something your mental midget capacity could understand. It’s only common because you fairy lame and "pinheadlitesout" get spanked from Tina. Anything else you and the"pinheadliteout do is your business.

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 10 min Paul Yanks 311,551
Eric Garner Murdered by Cop 28 min Ronald 303
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Pearl Jam 306,963
jets talk back (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 9,959
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 2 hr ElCubanoLibre 16,640
The United Hates of America (Sep '10) 2 hr Siam 1,536
Cuba - Next North Korea 2 hr Sunshine 4

New York News Video

New York Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

New York News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in New York

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Patriots' Week 16 Preview vs. Jets
NBC Sports 5:14 AM
Friday morning one-liners
Bleacher Report 9:30 AM
Boomer: Should Jets Clean House This Offseason?
NBC Sports 9:41 AM
Rashad Jennings not spotted practicing Friday
NBC Sports11:10 AM
Where does Rex Ryan land after this season?