Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60655 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#44131 Mar 11, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
You are a member of the cult of stupid. Members of the cult of stupid repeat stupid ideas no matter how often it is pointed out to them exactly why they are stupid. 1) "Wobbles" in the Earth's orbit or attitude can be exactly calculated and they are not responsible for global warming.[/QUOTE]An orbit can be exactly calculated if there are only two bodies, its impossible to calculate where there's a whole solar system orbiting a center of gravity. Climate change mitigation is based on faith, not science.

.

[QUOTE who="Fair Game"]2) The planet has not been warming since the last ice age. Warming at the end of the last ice age stopped 2000 years ago, during most of which time the Earth was actually cooling a bit, until the modern warming. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/hol...
Global warming is a good thing, else we'd still be in an ice age.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#44132 Mar 11, 2014
Professor Emeritus Fellow wrote:
BOULDER, Colo.— CALIFORNIA is now in the midst of the third year of one of its worst droughts on record. As our planet gradually warms from our rampant burning of fossil fuels, it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change has played in California’s troubles.
The answer is this: At present, the scientific evidence does not support an argument that the drought there is appreciably linked to human-induced climate change.
The drought has many attributes of historical droughts over that region — in particular, a lack of storms and rainfall that would normally arrive from the Pacific Ocean with considerable frequency. It resembles the droughts that afflicted the state in 1976 and 1977. Those years were at least as dry as the last two years have been for the state as a whole.
How about the Dust Bowl of the 1930's? Probably from all that industry in Californi...oh, wait, hardly anybody lived there then. Never mind.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#44133 Mar 11, 2014
"The Dust Bowl was the name given to an area of the Great Plains (southwestern Kansas, Oklahoma panhandle, Texas panhandle, northeastern New Mexico, and southeastern Colorado) that was devastated by nearly a decade of drought and soil erosion during the 1930s. The huge dust storms that ravaged the area destroyed crops and made living there untenable. Millions of people were forced to leave their homes, often searching for work in the West. This ecological disaster, which exacerbated the Great Depression, was only alleviated after the rains returned in 1939 and soil conservation efforts had begun in earnest."

With the great depression going on that officially ended in 2010 *snicker*, I wonder if history will repeat itself?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#44134 Mar 11, 2014
"An eight-year drought started in 1931 with hotter than usual temperatures. Winter’s prevailing winds took their toll on the cleared terrain, unprotected by indigenous grasses that once grew there."

Global warming didn't exist yet because most of the modern grant grabbers hadn't been born yet I guess. LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#44135 Mar 11, 2014
Did I mention that the stock market is due to crash within the next couple of weeks?
I'm not kidding.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#44136 Mar 11, 2014
Stan wrote:
So much ignorance from such a small population
You are talking about the grant grabbers, right?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44137 Mar 11, 2014
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Did I mention that the stock market is due to crash within the next couple of weeks?
I'm not kidding.
Are you going to crash it, alarmist?

Read:..climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West — and California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated.

But Holdren’s main point is the important one — quite separate from any changes in precipitation that climate change may cause, there is little dispute that human-caused climate change is worsening droughts in the West and Southwest. I recommend his entire paper to readers interested in this important subject.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3...
denier

Zion, IL

#44138 Mar 11, 2014
Spacecadet wrote:
<quoted text>Are you going to crash it, alarmist?
Read:..climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West — and California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated.
But Holdren’s main point is the important one — quite separate from any changes in precipitation that climate change may cause, there is little dispute that human-caused climate change is worsening droughts in the West and Southwest. I recommend his entire paper to readers interested in this important subject.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3...
Nope obama is!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44139 Mar 11, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Are you going to crash it, alarmist?
Read:..climate scientists specifically predicted a decade ago that Arctic ice loss would bring on worse droughts in the West — and California is now in the death-grip of a brutal, record-breaking drought, driven by the very change in the jet stream that scientists had anticipated.
But Holdren’s main point is the important one — quite separate from any changes in precipitation that climate change may cause, there is little dispute that human-caused climate change is worsening droughts in the West and Southwest. I recommend his entire paper to readers interested in this important subject.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/03/3...
Obama's science advisor?

Gee... spokesman for Liar of Year. Yeah... there's some credibility. Not.

"Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years."

http://news.msn.com/in-depth/scientists-past-...

A 3 year drought is "record breaking"?

Quit spewing CO2.
litesong

Everett, WA

#44140 Mar 11, 2014
maverick zero ate zero wrote:
If the arctic is as warm as you say it is, why is the arctic ice sheet 29% bigger than in 2010?
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers keep reducing the quantity of the Arctic ice sheet from 60%, to 50% & now to 29%, & they still are wrong. You writing "harm on us"?

Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of March 1, 2013 is 0.5% to 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for March 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~28,200 cubic kilometers. Present March 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~20,800 cubic kilometers,~7400 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for March 1.

slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers are truly blind, often are slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs & sometimes are alleged &/or proud threateners.

“Woof!”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#44141 Mar 11, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers keep reducing the quantity of the Arctic ice sheet from 60%, to 50% & now to 29%, & they still are wrong. You writing "harm on us"?
Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of March 1, 2013 is 0.5% to 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for March 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~28,200 cubic kilometers. Present March 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~20,800 cubic kilometers,~7400 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for March 1.
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers are truly blind, often are slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs & sometimes are alleged &/or proud threateners.
Are you saying that even though the ice sheet is larger, it is not as thick as it used to be?

Apparently you have a problem being civil.....

Since Amsterdam, Venice, New Orleans, Diego Garcia and a multitude of Pacific Islands
are not underwater at the moment, what happened to all that water that was trapped as ice?
Truth Facts

Chillicothe, OH

#44142 Mar 11, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers keep reducing the quantity of the Arctic ice sheet from 60%, to 50% & now to 29%, & they still are wrong. You writing "harm on us"?
Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of March 1, 2013 is 0.5% to 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for March 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~28,200 cubic kilometers. Present March 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~20,800 cubic kilometers,~7400 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for March 1.
slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers are truly blind, often are slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs & sometimes are alleged &/or proud threateners.
TROLL!!!!!!!!!!
SpaceBlues

United States

#44143 Mar 11, 2014
Maverick 808 wrote:
<quoted text>To another poster:

Are you saying that even though the ice sheet is larger, it is not as thick as it used to be?
Apparently you have a problem being civil.....
?
Have you not noticed 'mothra' has "a problem being civil "on this thread/page?

You must be in its cult, too.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44144 Mar 11, 2014
These science deniers are desperate.. welcome to namecalling..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44145 Mar 11, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you not noticed 'mothra' has "a problem being civil "on this thread/page?
You must be in its cult, too.
psst... when questioning one's "civility" it's counter-productive to use inflammatory rhetoric (eg, "cult") in your argument.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44146 Mar 11, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
These science deniers are desperate.. welcome to namecalling..
Yeah.. we all know "cult", and "denier" are terms of cvil debate.

You contradict yourself faster than litesong.

LOL

“Woof!”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#44147 Mar 11, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Have you not noticed 'mothra' has "a problem being civil "on this thread/page?
You must be in its cult, too.
Not really.
According to scientists, global warming is melting the polar icecaps and glaciers and that would in turn raise the level of the oceans. Since none of the major low lying cities are underwater, I was just wondering what happened to all that water.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44148 Mar 11, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
psst... when questioning one's "civility" it's counter-productive to use inflammatory rhetoric (eg, "cult") in your argument.
Well perhaps you might like John Kerry's quote: "Climate Change is 'the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction" ,'The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,' Kerry said.'We don't have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society,'

Maybe the mistake was climate change should have been called a WMD instead of global warming then you would be quite happy to do something about it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25609...
litesong

Everett, WA

#44149 Mar 11, 2014
Stan wrote:
So much ignorance from such a small population
True. re-pubic-lick-uns are declining in numbers. & toxic topix AGW deniers stand on shorelines & get swept out to sea.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44150 Mar 11, 2014
Maverick 808 wrote:
<quoted text>Not really.
According to scientists, global warming is melting the polar icecaps and glaciers and that would in turn raise the level of the oceans. Since none of the major low lying cities are underwater, I was just wondering what happened to all that water.
You make up your own facts. Try to learn what happens under the modern man-made climate change.

Wikipedia: Two main factors contribute to observed sea level rise.[9] The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.[10] The second is from the melting of major stores of land ice like glaciers and ice sheets.

Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed.[11]

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 He murdered her son; now she calls him every ot... 6 hr Greater Good 1
News El Paso Naturally Texas' westernmost city thriv... Sat DC Dave 11
News Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clini... Sat WeTheSheeple 120
News Happy Birthday, Samuel Lightnin' Hopkins, Pione... (Mar '15) Sat strong 5
News The Tea Party Isn 't Dead Yet (Jul '13) Fri swedenforever 31
News Quiet Cruz weighs role in Trump convention revolt Jul 21 trump fan 13
Legal Definition of "Mexican National" (May '08) Jul 21 ashamed of you 113
More from around the web