Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 53885 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.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38463 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
We now have Cat 7 hurricanes?
No. I said we COULD. But to document them, we need to open up the Simpson Safire scale to be open ended instead of lumping all storms about 5 into Cat 5.

abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story...

There is a debate on about the Cat 6 storms and why lumping them together hides the rising intensity of cyclonic storms. Cat 7 may occur (or may not) depending on circumstance. Are they a real threat now? Maybe not yet..

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#38464 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Another reason OzRitz should stay away from Twitter:
OzRitz: "One wonders what the steam roller will be with warming, one hurricane too many or the cost of living."
Maybe this is the one hurricane too many. OzRitz never got back to me when I asked what is one hurricane too many, as I think I need to know since I live in Florida.
Any hurricane is one too many. Being near Va Beach I keep an eye on the Atlantic. MyFoxHurricane.com is the best site on the net IMO>
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38465 Aug 26, 2013
"The Saffir-Simpson hurricane category scale is based on wind speed: Category 5 storm has sustained winds greater than 155 mph."

"The categories run in roughly 20 mph increments, so a Cat 6 would be greater than 175 or 180 mph."

So a Cat 7 would be sustained winds above 175 mph.

"A couple told me they'd measured close to 200 mph on a few occasions."

So maybe we've already had a Cat 7?

Not so far out, huh?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38466 Aug 26, 2013
Rats. That should read "So a Cat 7 would be sustained winds above 195 mph."
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38467 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I said we COULD. But to document them, we need to open up the Simpson Safire scale to be open ended instead of lumping all storms about 5 into Cat 5.
abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story...
There is a debate on about the Cat 6 storms and why lumping them together hides the rising intensity of cyclonic storms. Cat 7 may occur (or may not) depending on circumstance. Are they a real threat now? Maybe not yet..
Oh lord....can anyone explain why we are only comparing hurricane activity to the last 30 years and not the last 100 years? Are we cherry picking?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38468 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...I think some of these people would be surprised to find out they are outright charlatans. Susan Solomon and M.J. Ring, D. Lindner, E.F. Cross, R.E. Schlesinger just to name a few. I included papers from both sides of the debate, all showing a lower CO2 sensitivity. The papers are showing overwhelmingly that CO2 sensitivity has been overestimated and it is reported that the in the IPCC AR5, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped.
I didn't get these information from any one site and in fact I found the information on water vapor, this little nugget appeared in the article:
"Jeff Knight, a climate modeller at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, last year led an analysis of temperature trends from the year 2000 and found that current global climate models are able to reproduce such short-term events without a hitch. He says that the models produced an extended period of relatively flat temperatures in one out of every eight decades — although none of them produced a flat trend beyond 15 years."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/n...
Exactly what I have been saying, models have not predicted this 15-year standstill.
A 15 flat trend (if it were) is not " beyond" 15 years, is it, cretin?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38469 Aug 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there is no vested interest involved....is there?
ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills.
I do hope your prepared to respond in-kind about your "independent scientists".

btw, warmists should be last people criticizing others for their "models".
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38470 Aug 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
For thousands of years, Man has only known a relatively stable climate.
<quoted text>
False.
The evidence is very strong that human activity is causing the warming, and causing most of it.
<quoted text>
False.
The perfect climate for us is somewhere between where the icesheets return and the glaciers and polar ice caps melt.
The glaciers and polar ice caps are melting.
"relatively stable climate"? What the hell does that mean? Man has lived and thrived during the glacial retreat and you say that it is "false" to assume that it is a good thing?

Those are the cutest justifications for believing in CAGW since the "Is Not, you are a Stupid Head" strategy.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38471 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
"The Saffir-Simpson hurricane category scale is based on wind speed: Category 5 storm has sustained winds greater than 155 mph."
"The categories run in roughly 20 mph increments, so a Cat 6 would be greater than 175 or 180 mph."
So a Cat 7 would be sustained winds above 175 mph.
"A couple told me they'd measured close to 200 mph on a few occasions."
So maybe we've already had a Cat 7?
Not so far out, huh?
Yeah, I'm sure we did...back in 1969. Maybe that's why we are cherry picking only the last 30 years.

Hurricane Camille was the third and strongest tropical cyclone and second hurricane during the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season. It was the second of three catastrophic Category 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the United States during the 20th century (the others being 1935's Labor Day hurricane and 1992's Hurricane Andrew), which it did near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the night of August 17. Camille was the only Atlantic hurricanes to exhibit recorded sustained wind speeds of at least 190 miles per hour (310 km/h) until Allen equaled it in 1980. It is the only confirmed Atlantic hurricane in recorded history to make landfall with wind speeds at or above such a level. The actual windspeed of Hurricane Camille will never be known, however, as it destroyed all of the wind recording instruments upon making landfall. By central pressure, in turn, Camille was the second strongest U.S. landfalling hurricane in recorded history, second only to the Labor Day Hurricane in 1935. It was also the first modern Category 5 hurricane to ever receive a person's name when making landfall in the United States.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38472 Aug 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A 15 flat trend (if it were) is not " beyond" 15 years, is it, cretin?
If 2013 turns out to be flat, then we are beyond.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38473 Aug 26, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I do hope your prepared to respond in-kind about your "independent scientists".
btw, warmists should be last people criticizing others for their "models".
Different kind of model, hon.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38474 Aug 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Different kind of model, hon.
Sorry... guess the joke was beyond you.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38475 Aug 26, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
"The Saffir-Simpson hurricane category scale is based on wind speed: Category 5 storm has sustained winds greater than 155 mph."
"The categories run in roughly 20 mph increments, so a Cat 6 would be greater than 175 or 180 mph."
So a Cat 7 would be sustained winds above 175 mph.
"A couple told me they'd measured close to 200 mph on a few occasions."
So maybe we've already had a Cat 7?
Not so far out, huh?
Yes! We could generate millions of $ for studies simply to evaluate the plausibility for a new category of hurricanes.
Universities, Science Academies, Journals, Government agencies, Blogs... the list is endless for all the groups that could squeeze a couple of years of funding from that 'golden goose'.

Yup... LHMF, You may be on to something good there.

Run with it... YOU could be the next Al Gore!

Who says there's no money in 'Climate Alarmism' anymore?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#38476 Aug 26, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
"relatively stable climate"? What the hell does that mean? Man has lived and thrived during the glacial retreat and you say that it is "false" to assume that it is a good thing?
Those are the cutest justifications for believing in CAGW since the "Is Not, you are a Stupid Head" strategy.
The glacial retreat was 10,000 years ago, moron, qualifying as "thousands of years".
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38477 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lord....can anyone explain why we are only comparing hurricane activity to the last 30 years and not the last 100 years? Are we cherry picking?
No. We are using what we have documented. And research goes back beyond 30 years (but not with wind scale measurement).

i.e. www.ocean.lsu.edu/faculty/liu/liujanuary16.pd...
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38478 Aug 26, 2013
B as in B S as in S wrote:
<quoted text>
"relatively stable climate"? What the hell does that mean? Man has lived and thrived during the glacial retreat and you say that it is "false" to assume that it is a good thing?
Those are the cutest justifications for believing in CAGW since the "Is Not, you are a Stupid Head" strategy.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The glacial retreat was 10,000 years ago, moron, qualifying as "thousands of years".
No explanation as to what your point is so I will assume by your use of the pejorative that you disagree with me when I said that this "thousands of years" (as you put it) of warming is a good thing.

It seems Most CCC Believers think like you.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#38479 Aug 26, 2013
Catastrophic Climate Change Believers: GW is bad.
The rest of us: Glad the Glaciers are melting.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38480 Aug 26, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry... guess the joke was beyond you.
No joke. Real scientists construct models for global climate future. ALEC and the likes model the political future.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38482 Aug 26, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
No joke. Real scientists construct models for global climate future. ALEC and the likes model the political future.
Maybe I should have put 'LOL' at the end of my post. Give it up... you're sounding like SpaceBlues parsing words.

OTOH, you're now making an affirmative argument for the IPCC and all related policy makers and their objectives for the "science" of global warming.

So... how about an expose on that, you know, just to 'prove' that they're above reproach?
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38483 Aug 26, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
If 2013 turns out to be flat, then we are beyond.
Even if the next 4 months are record breaking warm 2013 will be considered flat.

•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.

As I always say No Warming

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 29 min Dr Guru 191,785
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Steve Sargent 60,496
idaho 2 hr Jay 1
News Why California Democrats don't want to 'fast tr... 10 hr noTpp 3
News Puerto Rico says it cana t pay its $70 billion ... 20 hr Kathy Morgan 1
News 35 California Counties Extend Healthcare to Ill... Sun freeBsNvotes 5
Election California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) Sun Peirre 16,019
More from around the web