Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 53987 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.

kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39076 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Christy on a blog:
<quoted text>
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
<quoted text>
Christy on a blog:
<quoted text>
Christy in the peer reviewed literature:
<quoted text>
It should be obvious even to an unquestioning spammer like you that Christy is saying one thing in one place and something else in another.
Why is that?
Oh yeah, because denier blogs are read by ideologically-bent, scientific illiterates like you.
Christy is a demagogue.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. But I understand because link #58 at "I can't think for myself" at Skeptical Science only cherry picks what they want you to think. So it's hard to reconcile what Christy says in one place against what Skeptical Science tells you. But since you don't have the ability to follow directions, I will post here the complete statement on the Tropical hot spot, which includes the conclusion from Skeptical Science:

Now this is from page 10....it's not a denier blog. It is about halfway down the page and then notice the key word, "HOWEVER"....I will put it all in caps so you can read that part of it:

The inconsistency between model results and observations could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture
such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric datasets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report - model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause)- favors the second explanation. HOWEVER, THE LARGE OBSERVATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MODELS STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties.

So how is this different from what Christy posted at another site?



“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#39077 Sep 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Believe it not, it has nothing to do with belief but with science facts.
Scientists don't do what you mmee expect from them. Surprise!
Think a little, duh.
The scientific FACT is that science and not event the IPCC have never said their own crisis was certain or inevitable or eventual or just WILL happen.
They agree it "could" not will so you have to stop saying it WILL, correct?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#39078 Sep 10, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not compare a whole lot of years?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/...
Good graph. The only other one year increase greater than the current year is in the Pinatubo time period when the entire earth cooled as a result of the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39079 Sep 10, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Good graph. The only other one year increase greater than the current year is in the Pinatubo time period when the entire earth cooled as a result of the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere.
That's because it was from a record low, idiot.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39080 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. But I understand because link #58 at "I can't think for myself" at Skeptical Science only cherry picks what they want you to think. So it's hard to reconcile what Christy says in one place against what Skeptical Science tells you. But since you don't have the ability to follow directions, I will post here the complete statement on the Tropical hot spot, which includes the conclusion from Skeptical Science:
Now this is from page 10....it's not a denier blog. It is about halfway down the page and then notice the key word, "HOWEVER"....I will put it all in caps so you can read that part of it:
The inconsistency between model results and observations could arise either because “real world” amplification effects on short and long time scales are controlled by different physical mechanisms, and models fail to capture
such behavior; or because non-climatic influences remaining in some or all of the observed tropospheric datasets lead to biased long-term trends; or a combination of these factors. The new evidence in this Report - model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause)- favors the second explanation. HOWEVER, THE LARGE OBSERVATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MODELS STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties.
So how is this different from what Christy posted at another site?
In the scientific literature he says that uncertainties mean we can't say that the models are wrong.

In the blog, he says the models are wrong and we can't explain why. Twice.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39081 Sep 10, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again, never reading my posts. I already addressed that models never predicted snow in a warming world in the Antarctic.
LOL, I missed that classic.
kristy wrote:
For these scientists to now say the extra snow is from warming is a lie. The prediction was always for decreased sea ice.
krusty trips over her big clown feet... again.

How we laugh!

Snow is not the same thing as ice, idiot.

And scientists do not "lie" in peer reviewed articles.

Ideologically bent, scientifically illiterate, conspiracy theory touting deniers on the internet like krusty the clown and fun farts and mothballs do, but scientists don't.

It's so easy for you, you assume it is for others.

But no, it isn't.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39082 Sep 10, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>The scientific FACT is that science and not event the IPCC have never said their own crisis was certain or inevitable or eventual or just WILL happen.
They agree it "could" not will so you have to stop saying it WILL, correct?
Nah, they only said temperatures will rise and sea level will rise and glaciers will melt and weather patterns will change.

They only said that this might cause some problems for future generations.

So we can all ignore the warnings and leave our grandchildren to deal with the mights and mays and likelys.

If we are as simple minded as mineinthe69.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39083 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I missed that classic.
<quoted text>
krusty trips over her big clown feet... again.
How we laugh!
Snow is not the same thing as ice, idiot.
Furthermore, the two papers do not even address the same issue.

One talks about sea ice and the other about land ice.

All you seem to be capable of is spamming extracts of articles cut' pasted from denier blogs.

Any intelligent discussion of the articles and whether or not they support your case (they don't) is clearly beyond you.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39084 Sep 11, 2013
By the way, the models *did* predict more snowfall:

Models predict that land areas in the Arctic will receive substantially increased snowfall in winter and that the climate will be markedly warmer. Summer could be much warmer and wetter than present. The climate over the Arctic Ocean does not change as dramatically, but it will become warmer and wetter by 2080. For the Antarctic continent, the models tend to predict more snow in winter and summer.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index....
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#39085 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it was from a record low, idiot.
Regardless of where the starting point is, it is the second largest single year increase on the graph.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39086 Sep 11, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Regardless of where the starting point is, it is the second largest single year increase on the graph.
Not regardless. Because.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39087 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Not regardless. Because.
That's ridiculous... unless you're going to argue that the largest annual increase was "because" it was the 9th lowest.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39088 Sep 11, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mothballs theory has more holes than woolen underware.
It's also a fake bird ...

SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39089 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Experimental data is science; why no published peer reviewed experiments for climate change mitigation? Do you suspect the effect of man made CO2 on global climate is too weak for experimental detection?
What data are you missing?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#39090 Sep 11, 2013
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39091 Sep 11, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>The scientific FACT is that science and not event the IPCC have never said their own crisis was certain or inevitable or eventual or just WILL happen.
They agree it "could" not will so you have to stop saying it WILL, correct?
What you have to understand is that only relevant numbers, equations, graphs, etc. but not words describe science. The scientists then use words to explain what they are reporting as science.

They don't need to put down words for communication among themselves. They use words for the uninitiated, unfamiliar people. For example, the use of probabilities makes words or grammar redundant.

So what you post here has no relevance to science.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39092 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
By the way, the models *did* predict more snowfall:
Models predict that land areas in the Arctic will receive substantially increased snowfall in winter and that the climate will be markedly warmer. Summer could be much warmer and wetter than present. The climate over the Arctic Ocean does not change as dramatically, but it will become warmer and wetter by 2080. For the Antarctic continent, the models tend to predict more snow in winter and summer.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index....
My bad…they did predict more snow. But they also predicted more melt due to CO2 forcing. So when someone says that an increase in Antarctic SIE is expected in a warming world, can you point out where that was expected and the models that came from?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39093 Sep 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
In the scientific literature he says that uncertainties mean we can't say that the models are wrong.
In the blog, he says the models are wrong and we can't explain why. Twice.
No, that's not what was said at all. They discussed reasons as to why models and observations diverged, came up with a few reasons why, favored one reason over the other, and then qualified that with this sentence: HOWEVER, THE LARGE OBSERVATIONAL UNCERTAINTIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MODELS STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties.

Show me where it says you can’t say models are wrong?

And by the way, this paper was co-authored by Christy. This wasn’t his paper only. If it was just his paper, then I’m sure the other option would have been favored. But when you are working with a team, you don’t always get each individual scientists opinion in the paper, you get the groups opinioin, which of course doesn’t mean the entire group agreed.

These are the authors of the paper:
Convening Lead Author:Tom M. L. Wigley, NSF NCAR
Lead Authors:V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; J.R. Christy, Univ. of AL
in Huntsville; J.R. Lanzante, NOAA; C.A. Mears, Remote Sensing
Systems; B.D. Santer, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland, U.K Met Office
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39094 Sep 11, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Good graph. The only other one year increase greater than the current year is in the Pinatubo time period when the entire earth cooled as a result of the volcanic particulate matter in the atmosphere.
Now that's really interesting. Just asking...what about Svenmark's theory....We have really low sun spots, increased cosmic rays which leads to clouds and cooling. Do you think this could have the same amount of cooling effect as Pinatubo?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39095 Sep 11, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My bad…they did predict more snow. But they also predicted more melt due to CO2 forcing. So when someone says that an increase in Antarctic SIE is expected in a warming world, can you point out where that was expected and the models that came from?
The melt is predicted in 30-40 years by the models.

As to your second question, try the paper that *you* posted that says the current increase is within the range of natural variability in the models.

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) 25 min woodtick57 192,268
Racism 2 hr Realist 3
News Renewable energy: Ukiah a 70 percent carbon freea 12 hr Solarman 1
News California governor signs strict school vaccine... 17 hr RiccardoFire 22
News Regulators: California fell far short of water-... 17 hr RiccardoFire 9
News Redwood Valley ready to fight Dollar General 19 hr Big Johnson 5
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 20 hr Belle Sexton 60,547
More from around the web