Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60150 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.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#41196 Nov 9, 2013
Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#41197 Nov 9, 2013
A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by:(1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#41198 Nov 9, 2013
Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.
Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.
And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#41199 Nov 9, 2013
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.
Hstory

Ingleside, TX

#41200 Nov 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are not just utterly ignorant but you are merely stupid to think that you know science when you don't..
How dare you! Go do an open heart surgery while you are having this episode..
When you can not find anything to dispute the facts, many people will get angry and turn to name calling. The science says we are in an ice age, and the evidence proves it. If you still don't want to believe it, then stop worring about the ice melting.
SpaceBlues

United States

#41201 Nov 9, 2013
Hstory wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can not find anything to dispute the facts, many people will get angry and turn to name calling. The science says we are in an ice age, and the evidence proves it. If you still don't want to believe it, then stop worring[sic] about the ice melting.
You are a persistent stupid.. it's permanent with you.

Look if you are a kid, still in school, learn about science, graph making in particular. This is a composite plot, a brilliant one. All of Earth's 542 million years are in one place.

No, science does not say we are in ice age. Where does it say that to you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#41202 Nov 9, 2013
flack wrote:
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.
Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.
Enough flack!
There are some benefits form a slight warming of the Earth. There is a point where the warming will become problematic. Most projections do show a detrimental future if the warming continues unabated. The statement that CO2 is not responsible for increased warming of the Earth is irresponsible and against scientific findings. Idso is not a climate scientist, his training is in geography and agronomy. It looks like his call to fame is his association with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. A anti-global warming bunch funded by the fossil fuel industry. Not impressed.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#41203 Nov 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough flack!
There are some benefits form a slight warming of the Earth. There is a point where the warming will become problematic. Most projections do show a detrimental future if the warming continues unabated. The statement that CO2 is not responsible for increased warming of the Earth is irresponsible and against scientific findings. Idso is not a climate scientist, his training is in geography and agronomy. It looks like his call to fame is his association with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. A anti-global warming bunch funded by the fossil fuel industry. Not impressed.
Why should we take your word a crisis will happen when science has NEVER said or agreed it WILL happen or anything beyond; "could be"?
Hstory

Ingleside, TX

#41205 Nov 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are a persistent stupid.. it's permanent with you.
Look if you are a kid, still in school, learn about science, graph making in particular. This is a composite plot, a brilliant one. All of Earth's 542 million years are in one place.
No, science does not say we are in ice age. Where does it say that to you?
Going to a source you like, it says we are currently in an ice age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Where on your graph does it show that the earth is warmer now than the past? It does not. The earth is currently much cooler now than normal. I supplied a graph to show it.
mike hock

Teaneck, NJ

#41206 Nov 9, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should we take your word a crisis will happen when science has NEVER said or agreed it WILL happen or anything beyond; "could be"?
I wonder how many agree with me that it is wise to assume the climate will change in some way, because it is not static, and simply do wwhat we can to account for that in whatever practical manor available. Doomsayers and avid deniers both look a little kooky to most people
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#41207 Nov 9, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dumb statement! What does that have to do with what I posted?
Yes, it's happened before. What does it matter?

He is too ignorant to know that the UK would go into deep freeze and there would likely be no London or Dublin left.

What does it matter to someone who has no appreciation of history, art, or culture?
Zane

United States

#41208 Nov 9, 2013
MUST SEE VIDEO: WATCH ALL THE WAY TO THE END!



Mia Marie Pope
The Manning Report
Published 11/04/2013
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#41209 Nov 9, 2013
CAGW is but a fantasy in the minds of those who desperately want to believe the planet is at risk from an extra 5 molecules of CO2 in combination with 999,995 molecules of air. The whole idea seems so absurd that I had to reread my own words after typing.

So,who is going to deny that the solution to the suggested climate crisis is:
simply remove 5 molecules of CO2 from every 100000 molecules of air?
Coal is King

Madisonville, KY

#41210 Nov 9, 2013
More voices from the coalfields:

From Clay City, KY (commenting on the shutdown of the Louisa Power Plant):

“Obama has none of his renewables ready to replace coal fired power plants, no matter how much they talk about alternative energy non of the renewables can replace the cheap power we just lost from the Louisa Power Plant.

If this EPA and administration shut down of most of the coal fired plants is going to work they should have replaced the coal fired plant with one of the renewables they are pushing.

We have hauled a lot of coal to that ole coal fired plant since the 1980's, hauled untold tons since it was built in the 60's.
Kind of a landmark during the 60's when a lot of had to leave for points up north to find work, because this place was a poverty stricken hell hole. It don't make me feel any worse knowing we got over 30 more years of power from it than we were supposed to. It will hurt the southeastern Kentucky just as much or more now than it would have in the 80's. Same damn stupid government policy that finally shut it down is just as wrong now as it was in the 80's.”

From Elkhorn City, KY:

“the whole non coal economy, transistion and change, what you really mean is, starvation and despair, suicide and wife beatings, drunks and drugs, this is what this type of economy creates.
Children growing up with no fathers, because either he has had to leave here to go elsewhere to work, or he runs off and leaves his family to do the best they can.
This is one more example of the downturn of the Country.
Thanks to the politicians, lol.”

From Clay City, KY:

“Natural Gas is not a renewable energy source, it is a carbon fuel. The Obama campaign to make coal more expensive so the renewables will be on equal footing has no relationship with natural gas.

How does pitting one carbon fuel against another fall into his push for using renewable sources.

We got both but employ more with coal than nat gas. As EPA keeps raising the clean air standard soon Natural Won't meet it either, it is just called the transition fuel. The fuel that burns 50% cleaner that bridges the gap between coal and the renewable energy sources.
The chemicals you lick off the glossy 8X10 of your hero Obama is effecting your brain.”
litesong

Everett, WA

#41211 Nov 9, 2013
B as in B as as in S wrote:
.....an extra 5 molecules of CO2 in combination with 999,995 molecules of air.......simply remove 5 molecules of CO2 from every 100000 molecules of air?
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?

Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.

No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#41212 Nov 9, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
More voices from the coalfields:
Coal has been in decline due to dirt, deaths and cost for some time. Nothing here but a sad rant.
mike hock

Teaneck, NJ

#41213 Nov 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
paragraph 1 : reasonable argument based on reasonable (though unverified) conjecture. paragraph 2 : elitist nonsense, which all but nullifies paragraph 1. if you want to make your point, remember occams razor as a guide. otherwise succumb to invincible arrogance, and lose.
B as in B as as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#41214 Nov 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So which is it? 5 from 999,995 or 5 in 100,000?
Or is it really 120 in 1,000,000? More likely, is it the potential to be 1000 in 1 million PLUS excess methane that is caused by a feedback loop PLUS excess nitrogen oxides, SF6, & other GHGs plus excess infra-red energy absorbing GHG phase change water vapor, which has an accelerating warming rate controlled by increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing, non-phase change GHGs.
No wonder you're flustered. Your percentages are wrong because you have no science or mathematics degrees, & no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for your poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Once again, your opinion is a poor tool for challenging the facts.
Besides that, your opinion is not in concert with the facts.

"120"ppm of CO2 is not mentioned by any scientific academy as lbeing the target of Carbon reduction. Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.

The larger points remain.
The FACTS are that an (ambitious) acceptable goal of those who advocate for climate mitigation is: a level of 350ppm.
Now you come along and:
1) Implicitly DENY the FACTS.
2) Counter the FACTS with your inflated OPINION (not endorsed by any science academy in the world BTW)
3) And here's my favorite part... After DENYING the FACTS then challenging them with your opinion you assert that these FACTS are not important as a "likely", "potential" of something that in your opinion might happen at some unspecified time in the future. ;-0

Come now, are you not even a little embarrassed? Or do you really see your opinions you have posted as sound scientific reasoning?

Hope you have a mild winter,
B as in B S as in S
Lea

United States

#41215 Nov 9, 2013
B as in B as as in S wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Once again, your opinion is a poor tool for challenging the facts.
Besides that, your opinion is not in concert with the facts.
"120"ppm of CO2 is not mentioned by any scientific academy as lbeing the target of Carbon reduction. Bill McKibben at 350.org clearly states that 350ppm CO2 is the goal; which would be more than achieved by removing 5 parts per 100,000.
The larger points remain.
The FACTS are that an (ambitious) acceptable goal of those who advocate for climate mitigation is: a level of 350ppm.
Now you come along and:
1) Implicitly DENY the FACTS.
2) Counter the FACTS with your inflated OPINION (not endorsed by any science academy in the world BTW)
3) And here's my favorite part... After DENYING the FACTS then challenging them with your opinion you assert that these FACTS are not important as a "likely", "potential" of something that in your opinion might happen at some unspecified time in the future. ;-0
Come now, are you not even a little embarrassed? Or do you really see your opinions you have posted as sound scientific reasoning?
Hope you have a mild winter,
B as in B S as in S
;-)

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#41216 Nov 9, 2013
mike hock wrote:
<quoted text> paragraph 1 : reasonable argument based on reasonable (though unverified) conjecture. paragraph 2 : elitist nonsense, which all but nullifies paragraph 1. if you want to make your point, remember occams razor as a guide. otherwise succumb to invincible arrogance, and lose.
Elitist?

Yes it is.

But not everyone can do basic maths.

And if you can't, what right do you have to say complicated science involving complicated maths is wrong?

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.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Corpses of Dead Migrants Plague Rural Texas Cou... 10 hr This is not America 39
News Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clini... 13 hr Retired SOF 38
News Michael Barone: Neither candidate is getting th... Tue tomin cali 1
News The Latest: Wendy Davis calls abortion ruling g... Tue WelbyMD 3
News Still no arrests after fatal shooting at Texas ... Tue Vincent The Chin ... 1
News Sharyl Attkisson: Homeland Security Mum on U.S.... Jun 27 spud 7
News Supporter waiting for Donald Trump at a campaig... Jun 27 Would L 2
More from around the web