Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60116 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.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37516 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, could you please post the information you have on the ENSO-ADJUSTED temperatures for the last 15 years. You posted the NOAA adjusted and unadjusted temperatures.
Yes, ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37517 Jul 29, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
This is like pulling teeth. Your graph means nothing unless you provide the method used for the adjustments. Can you post the link to the NOAA site that explains the methodology? Is this the Thompson method?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37519 Jul 29, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is like pulling teeth. Your graph means nothing unless you provide the method used for the adjustments. Can you post the link to the NOAA site that explains the methodology? Is this the Thompson method?
Sorry Krusty,*you* made the mistake in confusing unadjusted and ENSO-adjusted temperatures. If you want to argue that ENSO-adjusted temperatures have been flat for 15 years, the onus is on *you* to do that. I've shown you a graph to show that they are not: there's a positive trend in ENSO-adjysted temperatures for that period.
gcaveman1

Mason, MI

#37520 Jul 29, 2013
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>As in "CO2 as a thermal pollutant."
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Yes, not just in water, but it's beginning to be seen as a thermal pollutant for its effect on the air.

How do you feel about the post about Spain taxing solar collection? Will we see you protesting in the streets of Madrid soon?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37521 Jul 29, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "valuable" only in the capitalist sense, I assume. Land with trees, vegetation, natural beauty, and native peoples on it obviously isn't "worthless."
Settlement of the West has ruined large parts of it, thank goodness that leaders like Teddy Roosevelt put aside large tracts to be free from capitalist "development" that would've destroyed it.
I'm glad you see the real value in landscape lies in what is on top of the ground rather than what is underneath. That is another mindset that needs changing in the right of politics.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37522 Jul 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Krusty,*you* made the mistake in confusing unadjusted and ENSO-adjusted temperatures. If you want to argue that ENSO-adjusted temperatures have been flat for 15 years, the onus is on *you* to do that. I've shown you a graph to show that they are not: there's a positive trend in ENSO-adjysted temperatures for that period.
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37523 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
Nonsense.

Your ignorance is ahowing. First, tell us about your preferred methodology.

And compare it quantitatively against the alternatives w.r.t. relevance and significance to the raging man-made climate change.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37524 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the graph you showed has no meaning unless you post the methodology. How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph? Bottom line, the onus is on you. You are the one who has stated there is a strong positive trend and so far all you have shown me is a graph with no meaning. With all the controversy surrounding model failures, then one would have to assume that NOAA would have updated their enso- adjusted findings from 2008 and released those results with great fanfare to show us they were correct in their prediction that warming would resume after 2008.
Puzzled by what you intend with your phrase "..warming would resume after 2008."

Is it your contention that because an overall upward trend is interrupted by a brief downward turn or two, it's no longer an upward trend?

That really seems more like contentiousness than debate.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37525 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
How did you figure out the adjusted temperature temperatures were Enso adjusted just by looking at the graph?
No, I looked for adjusted temperatures and found the graph.

Where's yours?

*you* made the claim,*you* back it up.

I'm not going to do your work for you.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37526 Jul 30, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
Puzzled by what you intend with your phrase "..warming would resume after 2008."
Is it your contention that because an overall upward trend is interrupted by a brief downward turn or two, it's no longer an upward trend?
That really seems more like contentiousness than debate.
Yes, that phrase does seem more like contentiousness rather than debate doesn't it? NOAA said this in their 2008 State of the Climate Report after discussing the pause in warming:

"Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts."

So if you have a problem with the statement I posted, take it up with NOAA, please. More debate would be nice rather than contentiousness.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37527 Jul 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I looked for adjusted temperatures and found the graph.
Where's yours?
*you* made the claim,*you* back it up.
I'm not going to do your work for you.
You found the graph of a blogger playing around with ENSO-adjusted temperatures and solar and volcanic adjusted temperatures. Would any scientific institution use any of those graphs as proof of anything? It really doesn't matter anyway according to NOAA, because NOAA claimed in the 2008 State of the Climate Report that all this discussion was moot anyway because global temperatures would begin to rise again after 2008.

http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/06/adjusti...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37528 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You found the graph of a blogger playing around with ENSO-adjusted temperatures and solar and volcanic adjusted temperatures. Would any scientific institution use any of those graphs as proof of anything? It really doesn't matter anyway according to NOAA, because NOAA claimed in the 2008 State of the Climate Report that all this discussion was moot anyway because global temperatures would begin to rise again after 2008.
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/06/adjusti...
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.

If there are no figures for ENSO-adjusted temperatures up to the present, then you can't claim that there is a 15 year flat period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.

Of course Nick Stokes is a competent scientist and has dome the analysis and his results show a significant trend over the period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.

If you don't want to accept his results, you'll have to wait for NOAA to update their results.

Or accept the more recent research that BS posted that says 15 years periods in the adjusted temperatures are predicted by the models.

Either way you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
litesong

Everett, WA

#37529 Jul 30, 2013
ol kinky coal wrote:
Land has zero value until it is made productive. It does not even have potential value until it is made accessible to the markets. The railroads made the worthless land of the American West accessible.
Excellent example of euro & transplanted euro thinking.....land that supported 100 million Native Tribal members was worth nothing...... until less than worthless, & diseased(both in body & mind) euros & transplanted euros killed off the Native Tribes & changed & polluted the land........ oh, then it gets value.

Yeah, only the values of euros & transplanted euros mean anything...... suppression at its best!
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37530 Jul 30, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
If there are no figures for ENSO-adjusted temperatures up to the present, then you can't claim that there is a 15 year flat period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
Of course Nick Stokes is a competent scientist and has dome the analysis and his results show a significant trend over the period in the ENSO-adjusted temperatures.
If you don't want to accept his results, you'll have to wait for NOAA to update their results.
Or accept the more recent research that BS posted that says 15 years periods in the adjusted temperatures are predicted by the models.
Either way you don't have a scientific leg to stand on.
You can't have your cake and eat it either. You stated with no proof that ENSO-adjusted temperatures are strongly trending positive by showing a blogger's graph of a work in progress and refused to link the graph to this "competent" scientist. It is obvious the "competent" scientist is in no way posting these graphs declaring any kind of definitive conclusion. Just read the comments section, as there is lots of discussion going on about the methodology.

So I believe we are a standstill until NOAA decides to release an updated version of the ENSO-adjusted temperatures. In the meantime, scientists are trying to explain the pause.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37531 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that phrase does seem more like contentiousness rather than debate doesn't it? NOAA said this in their 2008 State of the Climate Report after discussing the pause in warming:
"Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts."
So if you have a problem with the statement I posted, take it up with NOAA, please. More debate would be nice rather than contentiousness.
I was speaking of you, of course, so trying to pass it off onto NASA is a bit disingenuous. You could at least take responsibility for repeating NASA's comment.

As to NASA, their phraseology could've been better, but I have to assume they meant that their graph would go back to following the general upward trend after a short-term dip or two of the kind any climate graph would be expected to take. Every single year's temperature isn't what's important, obviously, only the general trend over a longer period of years.

NASA made it sound, unfortunately, like warming had stopped and was starting again. That only encourages Deniers to take their comments the wrong way, unfortunately.
Coal is King

Paducah, KY

#37532 Jul 30, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "valuable" only in the capitalist sense, I assume. Land with trees, vegetation, natural beauty, and native peoples on it obviously isn't "worthless."
Settlement of the West has ruined large parts of it, thank goodness that leaders like Teddy Roosevelt put aside large tracts to be free from capitalist "development" that would've destroyed it.
Land has real value only if it contributes something to the material needs of civilization: food, fuel, building materials, etc. Unutilized land inhabited by savages contributes nothing to the material needs of civilization. Therefore it is worthless.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#37533 Jul 30, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Why?
We've been emitting CO2 that way for a million years; mother nature has adapted by now. Don't panic, water vapor is a greenhouse gas; we wouldn't survive without that anymore than we can survive without carbon dioxide.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37534 Jul 30, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Land has real value only if it contributes something to the material needs of civilization: food, fuel, building materials, etc. Unutilized land inhabited by savages contributes nothing to the material needs of civilization. Therefore it is worthless.
That land had potential to provide material needs for the white man. It already was valuable to the Native Americans. Of course it was not worthless. BTW the way the USA paid France a nice sun of money for the Louisiana Purchase. Not worthless.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#37535 Jul 30, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't have your cake and eat it either. You stated with no proof that ENSO-adjusted temperatures are strongly trending positive by showing a blogger's graph of a work in progress and refused to link the graph to this "competent" scientist. It is obvious the "competent" scientist is in no way posting these graphs declaring any kind of definitive conclusion. Just read the comments section, as there is lots of discussion going on about the methodology.
So I believe we are a standstill until NOAA decides to release an updated version of the ENSO-adjusted temperatures. In the meantime, scientists are trying to explain the pause.
You chose to believe what you want to believe is true even in the face of evidence that it isn't.

There is always discussion about the methodology, but nothing that questions the result: there is a positive trend for the last 15 years.

I don't believe for a minute that you will accept NOAA updated figures either: you will simply move on to a new excuse like deniers always do.

Yes, scientists are trying to explain the "pause", but that does not mean they doubt global warming is real or that it will continue.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Pap...
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37537 Jul 30, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
<quoted text>
Land has real value only if it contributes something to the material needs of civilization: food, fuel, building materials, etc. Unutilized land inhabited by savages contributes nothing to the material needs of civilization. Therefore it is worthless.
So ignorant, backward, and regressive a statement I have to assume you are trolling with it, so I'll leave it at that. Collect angry, outraged responses somewhere else.

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
If you have no borders, you have no country 3 min friend of eds 6
Why do FOX News woman dress like hookers (Jul '15) 5 min friend f-n-a sham... 81
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 9 min Nonlib 10,989
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 13 min the don 329,744
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 14 min _FLATLINE-------- 14,658
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 2 hr ThomasA 311,345
Time to go? (Jun '15) 3 hr Copper 11,954
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 5 hr Buddy from Whites... 40,229
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages