Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54494 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.

Pat

Fullerton, CA

#43586 Feb 15, 2014
So you global warming fans, what kind of weather pattern for a year (or 5 years) would start to convince you that global warming is maybe not real?

Is the answer---> there is no conceivable weather pattern for 1 year or 5 years that would sway me even a little. My beliefs are set. The science is settled.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43587 Feb 15, 2014
Pat wrote:
So you global warming fans, what kind of weather pattern for a year (or 5 years) would start to convince you that global warming is maybe not real?
Is the answer---> there is no conceivable weather pattern for 1 year or 5 years that would sway me even a little. My beliefs are set. The science is settled.
Deniers engage political filters when climate change is discussed. Therefore half the facts are dismissed before anyone makes a statement on it. A normal rational thinking person would suggest something's out of whack when you have weather headlines almost daily now.
England is getting swamped by water in another weather pattern sitting beside the US one bringing freezing conditions and tonnes of snow. California is fast running out of water, this is part of US which produces almost half of America's food bowl. The southern hemisphere is getting week in week out heatwaves and all the wild fires that come with that. Yet a denier has to keep telling themselves this all normal no matter how the frequency increases or the intensity of it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43588 Feb 15, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In researching my own neck of the woods, I can see why there's a lot of skepticism about global warming here (other than the general ignorance and conservatism {but I repeat myself}).
According to most of the graphs and charts I've seen, Mississippi and Alabama have changed the least of all the states, even being slightly cooler over the past century than the rest of the country. That's the average, meaning while we may have had some record heat spells, we've also had record cold spells. Precipitation, too, has not changed that much.
As we are a small part of the country, there is not much that is specific. I can't find definite proof that we have had higher highs and lower lows than normal, but subjectively, it seems like we have. I can't remember times when I was younger when the thermometer dipped down to 13, 15, 18 degrees for a few nights, but ut seems like it has happened more lately. The same with highs; I can't remember having 90 degree days in March like we had 2 years ago.
Al and Maggie said it best when they suggested that one symptom of climate change and global warming would be global weirding, or weather weirding. It just gets weird! Like a 90 degree day here in March and having to wear a jacket in July in Chicago last year.
My geography is somewhat the same as we live in a valley, so our local weather is somewhat neutralized. But Our winters are longer,more snow,colder longer days. But globally especially the fact polar and glacier ice is melting, the effects of costal cities is quite apparent. In the 350yrs of record keeping London England has not recorded the amount of rain in such a short period , as they have had for the last 3 months. Thousands actually have died in recent ys due to colder winters and warmer summers throughout Europe..The recent snowfall in Atlanta ,Texas, California. Thing is should we not adjust our infrastructure to better deal with the changes.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/cri...

Heres another good tool for measurement we don't often hear about anymore, I remember as a kid, it being part of our local news cast, back when media was a public service, lol.And local agriculture and beef and dairy farming was local.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#43589 Feb 15, 2014
http://www.almanac.com/
this is meant to go with last post.
Pat

Fullerton, CA

#43590 Feb 15, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Deniers engage political filters when climate change is discussed. Therefore half the facts are dismissed before anyone makes a statement on it. A normal rational thinking person would suggest something's out of whack when you have weather headlines almost daily now.
England is getting swamped by water in another weather pattern sitting beside the US one bringing freezing conditions and tonnes of snow. California is fast running out of water, this is part of US which produces almost half of America's food bowl. The southern hemisphere is getting week in week out heatwaves and all the wild fires that come with that. Yet a denier has to keep telling themselves this all normal no matter how the frequency increases or the intensity of it.
So you would like to see us go back to a time when California drought and US freezing are not headlines? Stay tuned. Maybe next year there will be no California drought or a massive freezing conditions in the southeast.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43592 Feb 15, 2014
Don't hold your breath on this with Republicans giving it their stamp of approval.

"Obama is expected to release his proposed 2015 budget in early March. The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House. But Obama, who made preparation for climate change one of the major themes of the climate action plan he released in June, will continue to press for the need to adapt, according to the White House."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-...

In Britain, the same crap different day with conservative thinking.

"After years avoiding what used to be his trademark issue, David Cameron has now twice voiced his strong suspicion of a link with climate change, most recently in a passionately delivered peroration at Tuesday’s press conference. Junior environment minister Dan Rogerson, standing in for the more sceptical Owen Paterson, agreed on Thursday that global warming was to blame. And Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey accused some Conservatives of “parroting the arguments of the most discredited climate change deniers”– only for his deputy, Michael Fallon, to hit back by denouncing “unthinking climate change worship”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/106...
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#43593 Feb 16, 2014
Lighten up!

Lucille Ball was a communist, and America survived that!
Professor Emeritus Fellow

Los Angeles, CA

#43594 Feb 16, 2014
More climate change proof!

Fact: Worst since 1994 !

Fact: Heaviest snow in Tokyo in 45 years !

You can't deny the facts.

==========

A snowstorm on the eastern coastline of Japan turned deadly over the weekend as heavy snowfall killed 11 and injured more than a thousand. Areas that don’t usually see this kind of weather received the heaviest snowfall recorded from a storm since January 1994, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

Tokyo received as much as 10.6 inches of snowfall, something that is rare due to the looming peak of Mount Fuji west of the city which blocks incoming snow and the heaviest to hit the city in 45 years. The city of Matsumoto in Honshu received the heaviest snowfall at 19.2 inches. Local media reports that at least 11 people have been killed due to several snow-related accidents, mostly those involving cars driving through icy roads. Various reports have also said around 1,250 have been injured due to snow-related incidents, many due to slipping on the ground or falling after attempting to shovel snow from their roofs.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43595 Feb 16, 2014
Professor Emeritus Fellow wrote:
More climate change proof!
Fact: Worst since 1994 !
Fact: Heaviest snow in Tokyo in 45 years !
You can't deny the facts.
==========
A snowstorm on the eastern coastline of Japan turned deadly over the weekend as heavy snowfall killed 11 and injured more than a thousand. Areas that don’t usually see this kind of weather received the heaviest snowfall recorded from a storm since January 1994, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.
Tokyo received as much as 10.6 inches of snowfall, something that is rare due to the looming peak of Mount Fuji west of the city which blocks incoming snow and the heaviest to hit the city in 45 years. The city of Matsumoto in Honshu received the heaviest snowfall at 19.2 inches. Local media reports that at least 11 people have been killed due to several snow-related accidents, mostly those involving cars driving through icy roads. Various reports have also said around 1,250 have been injured due to snow-related incidents, many due to slipping on the ground or falling after attempting to shovel snow from their roofs.
Fact: more heat = more evaporation = more precipitation.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43596 Feb 16, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact: more heat = more evaporation = more precipitation.
Unfortunately the deniers can NEVER make that connection. They just don't get it! so we continually see all these inane posts about how cold it is in one place or another. Regardless of the fact the whole point of the global warming message is about extreme weather and the toll it will make on everyone's life.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43597 Feb 16, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Deniers engage political filters when climate change is discussed. Therefore half the facts are dismissed before anyone makes a statement on it. A normal rational thinking person would suggest something's out of whack when you have weather headlines almost daily now.
England is getting swamped by water in another weather pattern sitting beside the US one bringing freezing conditions and tonnes of snow. California is fast running out of water, this is part of US which produces almost half of America's food bowl. The southern hemisphere is getting week in week out heatwaves and all the wild fires that come with that. Yet a denier has to keep telling themselves this all normal no matter how the frequency increases or the intensity of it.
Extreme weather events are ever present. There's been no systematic change found in that FACT.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#43598 Feb 16, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Extreme weather events are ever present. There's been no systematic change found in that FACT.
LIE.
Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n73...
The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n73...

But then deniers are liars.

They are also stupid liars.

England is currently suffering terrible floods after the wettest weather for almost 250 years.

How many 1 in 100 year, or 1 in 200 year floods happening year after year does it take for deniers to realise that something is going on, and that their stupid lies are not going to be believed any more?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#43599 Feb 16, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Extreme weather events are ever present. There's been no systematic change found in that FACT.
What's no systematic change?

Clearly, you lie without facts. NOAA does this basic picture for people like you.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/imag...

See the ten indicators, seven going up while three going down..

Any questions?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#43600 Feb 16, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>Extreme weather events are ever present. There's been no systematic change found in that FACT.
That's not what some of the experts are saying. They say there's an increase.

Are you an expert?
Get the facts straight

Fullerton, CA

#43601 Feb 16, 2014
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43602 Feb 16, 2014
Get the facts straight wrote:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface.........
Atmospheric man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs control amounts of atmospheric phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor.Thank you for delineating that atmospheric man-made non-phase change infra-red energy absorbing GHGs have great warming effects & primary & secondary feedbacks.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43603 Feb 16, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LIE.
<quoted text>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n73...
<quoted text>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n73...
But then deniers are liars.
They are also stupid liars.
England is currently suffering terrible floods after the wettest weather for almost 250 years.
How many 1 in 100 year, or 1 in 200 year floods happening year after year does it take for deniers to realise that something is going on, and that their stupid lies are not going to be believed any more?
give proof that weather events are caused by man before calling someone a liar, son.

lol

your hypothesis has holes in it.....so do the models you people swallow hook, line, and sinker. even after they prove erroneous!

how stupid is that?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43604 Feb 16, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What's no systematic change?
Clearly, you lie without facts. NOAA does this basic picture for people like you.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/imag...
See the ten indicators, seven going up while three going down..
Any questions?
you need help. with your life and your arguments.
weather events haven't changed. people just populate more of the earth now.
get it?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43605 Feb 16, 2014
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what some of the experts are saying. They say there's an increase.
Are you an expert?
some are saying the opposite. are you a left winger? just wondering.....i see a pattern with you people.....and you could care less about science.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#43606 Feb 16, 2014
Get the facts straight wrote:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade or 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
but there's money in taxing co2!!! they want us to believe fossil fuels are the evil doers to climate. funny that the religious zealots don't complain about agricultural irrigation.

very telling isn't 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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Rogue Scholar 05 196,902
Can the people of California get rid of the go... 14 hr witness 1
News Cigarette tax poll: California voters overwhelm... 14 hr witness 4
News Minimum-wage hike and oil-drilling ban are amon... 15 hr politicians are c... 1
News $2 more for cigarettes? California tobacco tax ... 16 hr Citizen 2
News Obamacare: Poll shows rising support throughout... 21 hr RustyS 1
News DMV denies drivers license to man with no hands 23 hr Joe Balls 1
More from around the web