Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60675 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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42529 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You shot Watts and yourself?
Dummy... your word.
LOL
I didn't expect you to understand such a complex issue. LOL
Professor Emeritus Fellow

Corona Del Mar, CA

#42531 Jan 7, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Often AGW energy enhanced warm fronts from the south are strongly driven into the high Arctic NP region, spikily raising temperatures 10-14degC higher than normal. Further AGW enhanced energy drives cold Arctic masses south, onto populated areas.
There's your AGW........ warming the Arctic.
You're talking about weather. We're talking climate.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42532 Jan 7, 2014
Extract from Time Science Magazine: Jan. 06, 2014

"Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially,“nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out."
But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-ch...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42533 Jan 7, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect you to understand such a complex issue. LOL
From one who can't admit Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.

Yeah... there's some serious criticism.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42534 Jan 7, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
Extract from Time Science Magazine: Jan. 06, 2014
"Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially,“nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out."
But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold
http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-ch...
<sigh>

It's hot... global warming.
It's cold ... global warming.
It's dry.... global warming.
It's wet.... global warming.
More hurricanes, less hurricanes. more tornadoes, less tornadoes.

All that's missing is 'if nothing changes... global warming.'

And folks wonder why people call 'global warming' a religion.

btw, a contributor from Time Magazine? Yeah... there's a credible source.

Oz wanna cracker?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42535 Jan 7, 2014
Damn that Sharpton, coming up with crap to make us warmist look like the fools we are AGAIN:

Al Sharpton standing in for Al Gore on convenient global warming lies

With multi-millionaire Al Gore in state-secret, Polar Vortex hiding, it’s left to race-baiter Al Sharpton to hold up the man-made global warming/climate change flag on national television.

Al Sharpton, now officially Gore’s ‘et al’, turned up sporting a white lab coat on MSNBC’s Politics Nation on Friday to feed more conspiracy theories to the hungry polar vortex hordes.

To the two “Al’s”, we’re all white mice in a lab waiting to hear more weather change lies.

In Toronto, they blame beleaguered-by-left-wing Mayor Rob Ford for the Christmas holiday ice storm that left some 300,000 in the dark.

In the U.S., the raging winter storms are the fault of Fox News.

‘Sharpton played four one-sentence news clips from Fox News before coming back with:( TruthRevolt.org Jan. 6, 2014)

“These right-wingers are boiling over with denial. Just because it snows in winter doesn’t mean the planet isn’t getting warmer. Remember a U.N. Panel said there’s a 90% probability that humans are the primary cause of global warming. And over 97% of climate researchers surveyed in the United States academy of science agrees. It sure doesn’t take much for the folks at fox to hit their melting point. The result of tonight’s experiments are in. And we’ve deduced the right wing could use a new talking point. This has been a special edition of the Politics Nation science lab.

“If Mr. Sharpton conducted any research of his own, he would have realized that the 97% of climate researchers poll has been disproved many times over, and that most of the “gloom and doom” predictions made by the global warming theorists have not come true. Even the climate change histrionics one sees in the media after every major storm or fire are wrong, as the frequency of hurricanes, tornados, and wildfires are all way down.”

One of the most noteworthy of global warming predictions that did not come true was Al Gore’s 2008 insistence that the North Pole would be free of ice within five years by 2013.

We know from the recent fate of the ice-trapped Akademik Shokalskiy, followed by the Chinese ice breaker Xui Long in the Antarctic that Gore needs a new crystal ball among his boy toys.

Nor did Gore’s oft-repeated fears of the oceans rising stop him from buying an $8.75 million, ocean front villa in Montecito, California, in 2010.

Other facts arguing against the anthropogenic climate change theory include the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.’s global warming organization, which acknowledges that the Earth’s temperatures haven’t gotten warmer in over 15 years. Additionally, both polar ice caps are growing at near record rates. In fact, some peer-reviewed studies are predicting the earth is about to experience a mini ice age.

Look up from your ‘lab’ and out almost any window when you’re ready, Scientist Sharpton. You’ll find that “Baby, it’s cold out there”.

The best explanation for climate change doesn’t come from television actors dressed in white lab coats, it comes from recognizing that Mother Nature, like everything else, is a daughter of the Creator.

I do wish he would not make us warmers have to prove what we cant.. Its a lot easier having pukes like on this board just accept the kool aid they love and enjoy.
total idiots r us

Seattle, WA

#42536 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
It's hot... global warming.
It's cold ... global warming.
It's dry.... global warming.
It's wet.... global warming.
More hurricanes, less hurricanes. more tornadoes, less tornadoes.
All that's missing is 'if nothing changes... global warming.'
And folks wonder why people call 'global warming' a religion.
btw, a contributor from Time Magazine? Yeah... there's a credible source.
Oz wanna cracker?
oh but 'mothra', you miss the point.
it's hot global warming $
it's cold global warming $
it's dry global warming $
it's wet global warming $
and you wonder?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42537 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
It's hot... global warming.
It's cold ... global warming.
It's dry.... global warming.
It's wet.... global warming.
More hurricanes, less hurricanes. more tornadoes, less tornadoes.
All that's missing is 'if nothing changes... global warming.'
And folks wonder why people call 'global warming' a religion.
btw, a contributor from Time Magazine? Yeah... there's a credible source.
Oz wanna cracker?
I have made billions preaching that. Come brother, be a minion.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42538 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
<sigh>
It's hot... global warming.
It's cold ... global warming.
It's dry.... global warming.
It's wet.... global warming.
More hurricanes, less hurricanes. more tornadoes, less tornadoes.
All that's missing is 'if nothing changes... global warming.'
And folks wonder why people call 'global warming' a religion.
btw, a contributor from Time Magazine? Yeah... there's a credible source.
Oz wanna cracker?
Oh now Time magazine is not credible, its one US publication that has more credibility worldwide than any other. But I guess compared to Rush's blog it wouldn't rate much as a credible source to your lot.

The whole point of climate change is dominance of extreme weather over what is expected to be the norm. It has nothing to do with hot, cold , wet or dry its all about the extremes of all of the above. You deny that we are beginning to experience that already, I beg to differ.
Extreme weather costs BILLION$ to the tax payer controlling emissions costs a whole lot less than that. Perhaps you could do some simple maths yourself to work it out.
El oh El

Webster, MA

#42539 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>

More hurricanes, less hurricanes. more tornadoes, less tornadoes.
No no. Hurricane's are because of George Bush's hurricane machine that is sponsored by that evil Dick Cheney and Halliburton or didnt you get that memo? we gotta make sure we dont confuse the two. Dastardly weather machines dont count toward global warming/cooling/heating/change or what ever its called this week.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42540 Jan 7, 2014
Deniers whine because they are unable to disprove the AGW.
El oh El

Webster, MA

#42541 Jan 7, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers whine because they are unable to disprove the AGW.
the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.--------- So SpaceBlues, what about all the millions of years of global warming before humans where even on the planet? Must be George Bush's fault.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42542 Jan 7, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now Time magazine is not credible, its one US publication that has more credibility worldwide than any other...
Stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42543 Jan 7, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
From one who can't admit Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.
Yeah... there's some serious criticism.
When you can't make a valid argument, bring up Al Gore. Get lost.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#42544 Jan 7, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.--------- So SpaceBlues, what about all the millions of years of global warming before humans where even on the planet? Must be George Bush's fault.
Pitiful argument. Tell us which one of those historic events is causing global warming today. You cannot do that but will not admit that mankind has anything to do with it, even though you know that burning fossil fuels is releasing tons of the greenhouse CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#42545 Jan 7, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can't make a valid argument, bring up Al Gore. Get lost.
When you can't admit an inconvenient truth, you demonstrate you inability to have serious discussions.

Run along sonny... the sky's falling somewhere.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42546 Jan 7, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.--------- So SpaceBlues, what about all the millions of years of global warming before humans where even on the planet? Must be George Bush's fault.
Your bias is based on ignorance. LOL.

How? Do continue the same piece:

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

NASA satellites record a host of vital signs including atmospheric aerosols (particles from both natural sources and human activities, such as factories, fires, deserts, and erupting volcanoes), atmospheric gases (including greenhouse gases), energy radiated from Earth’s surface and the Sun, ocean surface temperature changes, global sea level, the extent of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice, plant growth, rainfall, cloud structure, and more.

On the ground, many agencies and nations support networks of weather and climate-monitoring stations that maintain temperature, rainfall, and snow depth records, and buoys that measure surface water and deep ocean temperatures. Taken together, these measurements provide an ever-improving record of both natural events and human activity for the past 150 years.

Scientists integrate these measurements into climate models to recreate temperatures recorded over the past 150 years. Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.

Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years.

Got it? You can read the rest and study the graphs which cover until 2011. The last graph covers: Satellite measurements show warming in the troposphere (lower atmosphere, green line) but cooling in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere, red line). This vertical pattern is consistent with global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, but inconsistent with warming from natural causes.(Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Remote Sensing Systems, sponsored by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program.)

Got it? You asked about millions of years ago - IOW, the geologic temperature record. What about it? Have you read the Wikipedia?
University

Corona Del Mar, CA

#42547 Jan 7, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can't make a valid argument, bring up Al Gore. Get lost.
You need to stop watching the weather channel and turn on the Climate Channel.
litesong

Everett, WA

#42548 Jan 7, 2014
climate change claptrap wrote:
......global warming has caused EXTREME climate change temperatures.
Glad you agree.......
AGW enhanced southern warm fronts push hard into the NP region, raising spiky temperatures as much as 10-14degC. above normal. Simultaneously, the AGW enhanced warm fronts push Arctic cold fronts south. Thus, people get cold feet. Touched toxic topix AGW deniers & whiners (d&w) get EXTREME-ly cold feet.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42550 Jan 7, 2014
Damn, Damn those facts again. You warmist are killing my agenda. Can you not cover up these facts? Worthless pukes. I pay you and you FAIL me.

These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves

One British town is in the renewable energy game for the long run — literally. The town bought two wind turbines that will take more than four centuries to pay for themselves.

The BBC reports that the two wind turbines installed in the English town of Rushcliffe will not likely produce any financial benefits for the town. Rushcliffe spent nearly $50,000 in 2004 installing the wind turbines at a county park, which doesn’t actually get much wind.

“Due to higher than anticipated maintenance costs and relatively low generation rates, it is unlikely the council will make a financial saving within the anticipated lifespan of the turbine,” said the Rushcliffe Borough Council.

The wind turbines’ poor location and mechanical problems mean that it only produced 477 kilowatt hours in 2012 and 2013. Last year, the turbine only generated about $121 worth of power, meaning that it would take 405 years for them to pay for themselves.

The Rushcliffe council, however, contended that the “meter wasn’t operating properly” and that the two turbines usually produce 3,478 kilowatt hours annually — which would still mean a 55-year payback period.

This information was obtained by the UK Telegraph as part of an in-depth investigation on how the towns all across the United Kingdom are spending millions of dollars on wind turbines that are faulty and don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves.

“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” Telegraph reported.“Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.”

Only three out of a handful of the towns that responded to the Telegraph’s inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods under ten years.

“Wind energy is an experiment, and sometimes the lessons learnt are hard and dearly bought,” Dr. John Constable, director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, told the Telegraph.“The truth is that foolishly ambitious targets and silly levels of subsidy have overheated the wind industry, resulting in defective technologies and poor installations.”

In Scotland, wind power developers are being criticized for cutting down millions of trees to make room for wind turbines — all in the name of independence.

The Times of London reported that about five million trees have been cut down since 2007 in order to make way for wind farms. Only about 1,957 acres of woodland were planted after the wind farms were built.

The left-leaning Scottish National Party that wants to secede from the United Kingdom has often invoked renewable energy as a path to independence.

Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser told the Times,“the [Scottish National Party] is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.”

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
News Clinton vs Trump: battle of the New Yorkers 10 min Go Blue Forever 83
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 41,008
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 1 hr Baroque Obama - T... 11,400
Will Hillary keep the nuclear codes on computer? 1 hr Homer N Jethro Re... 3
GREAT WALL of MEXICO - PLAGIARIZED ! - China ! 1 hr Dan Blocker Conse... 8
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 1 hr SweLL GirL 15,917
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 1 hr Dan Snow 15,021
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 2 hr Paul Yanks 330,888
Topix Human Sexuality Forum Discontinued Fri TN Voter 34

New York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages