Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63620 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

#49892 Sep 10, 2014
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>But what's warming the oceans?
The trade winds in the Pacific are stronger (due to AGW) which then causes more heat to be transported to the deeper oceans (overturning)

But of course, your question was pejorative, not informative.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49893 Sep 10, 2014
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
The trade winds in the Pacific are stronger (due to AGW) which then causes more heat to be transported to the deeper oceans (overturning)
Citation required, because as you recall spelling forty with a U at school, your word cannot be taken for anything.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49894 Sep 10, 2014
The citation required is for evidence that AGW has caused stronger trade winds, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
NEVER used AC this summer

Minneapolis, MN

#49895 Sep 10, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Climate change is moving more arctic air down the midcontinent. Even in Ontario the jet stream is farther north and we get more of the weather coming up from the Gulf instead of from the midwest (the old pattern)
<quoted text>
Everywhere. It is assessed GLOBALLY, but felt locally. The cold is climate change FROM global warming (it has effects on local weather that contradict the global trends).
As a scientist. Not the loons here.
Oh shoot, I knew it was not as simple as that.

Ya see I thought when all the Scientists said the globe was warming and everyone on the globe was going to burn up, hence the term GLOBAL WARMING, the entire GLOBE would be warming.

Guess I misinterpreted what the scientists said. Isn't the "Globe" the entire earth?

Oh forget it I must be a confused non-scientist, sorry.

"A globe is a three-dimensional scale model of Earth (terrestrial globe or geographical globe) or other celestial body such as a planet or moon. While models can be made of objects with arbitrary or irregular shapes, the term globe is used only for models of objects that are approximately spherical. The word “globe” comes from the Latin word globus, meaning round mass or sphere. Some terrestrial globes include relief to show mountains and other features on the Earth’s surface."

Hell the Globe is only a model of earth so the term is useless when talking weather/climate..

EXCUSE ME.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#49896 Sep 10, 2014
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Citation required, because as you recall spelling forty with a U at school, your word cannot be taken for anything.
Ok, ya lazy nitwit. If you cannot do the "just google it' for yourself I'll help you THIS ONCE.

http://tinyurl.com/lvho86v
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#49897 Sep 10, 2014
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya see I thought when all the Scientists said the globe was warming and everyone on the globe was going to burn up, hence the term GLOBAL WARMING, the entire GLOBE would be warming.
You? Thinking? I suspect that this is an example of you NOT thinking or even doing cursory research. Any check on the issue would clearly establish that AGW is about the AVERAGE going up, not uniform change over the globe. Duuuhhhhh.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess I misinterpreted what the scientists said. Isn't the "Globe" the entire earth?
Oh forget it I must be a confused non-scientist, sorry.
True. But you didn't misinterpret any scientists. The issue was clearly stated beyond simple misunderstanding. You have to be deliberately misreading, misleading and probably lying.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
"A globe is a three-dimensional scale model of Earth (terrestrial globe or geographical globe) or other celestial body such as a planet or moon. While models can be made of objects with arbitrary or irregular shapes, the term globe is used only for models of objects that are approximately spherical. The word “globe” comes from the Latin word globus, meaning round mass or sphere.
Yes. The globe is a noun. An object. But GLOBAL is an adjective used as a descriptor. In context it is the whole of the surface of the globe (i.e inclusive of ALL areas) and the warming applies to the WHOLE of the area. Over that total area, it is warming on average. Is this the closest you can come to 'scientificky' thought?
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell the Globe is only a model of earth so the term is useless when talking weather/climate..
EXCUSE ME.
There is no excuse for you or rather your total ignorance of what is well documented and thoroughly disseminated to anyone that wants to even give it a cursory glance. You just demonstrate how little you know or care to know.
litesong

Everett, WA

#49898 Sep 10, 2014
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
I never used AC this summer, either. House doesn't even have AC. The guy next door put in an AC unit some years ago. I don't think I heard it running much this summer either. That was good. When it is noisily running, it pumps heat into our house, if we have our door open for air flow.
NEVER used AC this summer

Minneapolis, MN

#49901 Sep 10, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You? Thinking? I suspect that this is an example of you NOT thinking or even doing cursory research. Any check on the issue would clearly establish that AGW is about the AVERAGE going up, not uniform change over the globe. Duuuhhhhh.
<quoted text>
True. But you didn't misinterpret any scientists. The issue was clearly stated beyond simple misunderstanding. You have to be deliberately misreading, misleading and probably lying.
<quoted text>
Yes. The globe is a noun. An object. But GLOBAL is an adjective used as a descriptor. In context it is the whole of the surface of the globe (i.e inclusive of ALL areas) and the warming applies to the WHOLE of the area. Over that total area, it is warming on average. Is this the closest you can come to 'scientificky' thought?
<quoted text>
There is no excuse for you or rather your total ignorance of what is well documented and thoroughly disseminated to anyone that wants to even give it a cursory glance. You just demonstrate how little you know or care to know.
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

IMO, "Global Warming" means the entire Globe is warming, not just parts of it. IF man made emissions are causing the Globe to warm then the area with most of the emissions would be the warmest. The USA is blamed for Global Warming because of all the combustion of carbon based fuels. WHY isn't the USA the warmest place on the Globe? The alarmist's, YOU, are mandating the USA reduce emissions because we are destroying the Globe by burning it up.

I'd say you are all idiots 'cause the Globe isn't burning up!! In fact it's FREEZING here.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#49902 Sep 10, 2014
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
IMO, "Global Warming" means the entire Globe is warming, not just parts of it. IF man made emissions are causing the Globe to warm then the area with most of the emissions would be the warmest.
Er..., no. CO2 is well mixed and its effects are global.

But thank you for bringing the intellectual insight of a small child to bear on the subject.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#49903 Sep 10, 2014
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.
And there is generally sh*t behind them.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, "Global Warming" means the entire Globe is warming.
Yes. The global surface IS warming. Nobody said or even implied that it would be uniform everywhere. In fact, the whole issue of 'climate change' is about the fact that it will NOT be uniform. All you demonstrate is your ignorance or deliberate stupidity.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
IF man made emissions are causing the Globe to warm then the area with most of the emissions would be the warmest.
No. GHGs are generally 'well mixed' over the planet. Cooling from sulphate aerosols (i.e smog) is localized though since it is not as persistent in the atmosphere as the gases. This is simple grade one stuff. You need to understand a topic before you bust out with bullship..
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
The USA is blamed for Global Warming because of all the combustion of carbon based fuels. WHY isn't the USA the warmest place on the Globe?
Two reasons. One is that the emissions from one year are spread downwind almost immediately. The coal smog from the Mississippi valley doesn't STAY in the Mississippi valley does it? In fact, the states and countries downwind enjoy the pollution. Same with CO2 emissions except that they are mixed over the entire globe.

Secondly, the rise of 0,9C or so in (global average surface temperature) is not disruptive. BUT it affects processes such as the shear in the jet stream that DOES change where heat energy is moved (i.e arctic air can move south easier). This is the consequent CLIMATE CHANGE driven by AGW.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
The alarmist's, YOU, are mandating the USA reduce emissions because we are destroying the Globe by burning it up.
The problem is global. The US did produce a lot of the emissions that are in the current atmosphere but nobody is singling them out, nor can the US stop it alone. Please read SOMETHING about it.. The old whine about the US being 'picked on' by other countries is just bafflegab.
NEVER used AC this summer wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say you are all idiots 'cause the Globe isn't burning up!! In fact it's FREEZING here.
You call us idiots when you confuse global climate with local weather????

Again, you demonstrate the total stupidity of those who cannot understand or do not WANT to understand the science or evidence.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49905 Sep 11, 2014
LessFact wrote:
Ok, ya lazy nitwit. If you cannot do the "just google it' for yourself I'll help you THIS ONCE.
http://tinyurl.com/lvho86v
Thanks for the link informing me that warming hasn't happened since 2001, therefore AGW can't be the cause of "stronger trade winds," can it, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49906 Sep 11, 2014
FugYou wrote:
Er..., no. CO2 is well mixed and its effects are global.
[infantile comment deleted]
It's so well mixed, it's had no effect on Glowbull warming for almost two decades.Ö¿Ö

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49907 Sep 11, 2014
LessFact wrote:
The trade winds in the Pacific are stronger (due to AGW)
Not quite what the link you provide in the next post tells us:
MoreHype wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/lvho86v
In which, no cause of stronger trade winds is mentioned and "AGW" isn't mentioned at all.
Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.
No warming equals no AGW, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
Expert Meteorologist

Corona Del Mar, CA

#49909 Sep 11, 2014
More and more evidence of global cooling keeps coming. This train can't be stopped.
=========
An early September winter storm in the Black Hills has dumped up to 8 inches of snow in the area, while Rapid City received its earliest snowfall in more than 120 years.

Jon Chamberlain, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Rapid City, said almost 1 inch of snow had fallen in downtown Rapid City by 8:30 a.m. while 2 inches was measured in higher elevations in town.

The snowfall in downtown Rapid City is the earliest in the city since 1888, the NWS said. The previous early snowfall mark was seven-tenths of an inch on Sept. 13, 1970.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49910 Sep 11, 2014
Expert Meteorologist wrote:
More and more evidence of global cooling keeps coming. This train can't be stopped.
=========
An early September winter storm in the Black Hills has dumped up to 8 inches of snow in the area, while Rapid City received its earliest snowfall in more than 120 years.
Jon Chamberlain, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Rapid City, said almost 1 inch of snow had fallen in downtown Rapid City by 8:30 a.m. while 2 inches was measured in higher elevations in town.
The snowfall in downtown Rapid City is the earliest in the city since 1888, the NWS said. The previous early snowfall mark was seven-tenths of an inch on Sept. 13, 1970.
Weather isn't evidence of anything much to do with Glowbull warming or cooling.
Only human emissions can affect climate, allegedly.
Read This

Salisbury, Canada

#49911 Sep 11, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is generally sh*t behind them.
<quoted text>
Yes. The global surface IS warming. Nobody said or even implied that it would be uniform everywhere. In fact, the whole issue of 'climate change' is about the fact that it will NOT be uniform. All you demonstrate is your ignorance or deliberate stupidity.
<quoted text>
No. GHGs are generally 'well mixed' over the planet. Cooling from sulphate aerosols (i.e smog) is localized though since it is not as persistent in the atmosphere as the gases. This is simple grade one stuff. You need to understand a topic before you bust out with bullship..
<quoted text>
Two reasons. One is that the emissions from one year are spread downwind almost immediately. The coal smog from the Mississippi valley doesn't STAY in the Mississippi valley does it? In fact, the states and countries downwind enjoy the pollution. Same with CO2 emissions except that they are mixed over the entire globe.
Secondly, the rise of 0,9C or so in (global average surface temperature) is not disruptive. BUT it affects processes such as the shear in the jet stream that DOES change where heat energy is moved (i.e arctic air can move south easier). This is the consequent CLIMATE CHANGE driven by AGW.
<quoted text>
The problem is global. The US did produce a lot of the emissions that are in the current atmosphere but nobody is singling them out, nor can the US stop it alone. Please read SOMETHING about it.. The old whine about the US being 'picked on' by other countries is just bafflegab.
<quoted text>
You call us idiots when you confuse global climate with local weather????
Again, you demonstrate the total stupidity of those who cannot understand or do not WANT to understand the science or evidence.
Canada is headed for a long cold winter again this year. You better run and hide.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#49912 Sep 11, 2014
Read This wrote:
Canada is headed for a long cold winter again this year. You better run and hide.
He'll tell you that Glowbull warming is the cause of cold weather.
litesong

Everett, WA

#49913 Sep 11, 2014
NEVER used brains in science or mathematics classes wrote:
the term is useless when talking weather/climate..EXCUSE ME.
Correction:
the term is useless when spoken by sleepy sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars....... NO EXCUSE ME.
truth-facts

Chillicothe, OH

#49914 Sep 11, 2014
Expert Meteorologist wrote:
More and more evidence of global cooling keeps coming. This train can't be stopped.
=========
An early September winter storm in the Black Hills has dumped up to 8 inches of snow in the area, while Rapid City received its earliest snowfall in more than 120 years.
Jon Chamberlain, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Rapid City, said almost 1 inch of snow had fallen in downtown Rapid City by 8:30 a.m. while 2 inches was measured in higher elevations in town.
The snowfall in downtown Rapid City is the earliest in the city since 1888, the NWS said. The previous early snowfall mark was seven-tenths of an inch on Sept. 13, 1970.
Global warming
Global cooling
Climate disruption
Climate change

What will you clowns try to use next for your doom and gloom of earth. Nothing has worked thus far.Go back to the drawing board and figure something out.Your embarrassing yourself's.
NEVER used AC this summer

Minneapolis, MN

#49915 Sep 11, 2014
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
And there is generally sh*t behind them.
<quoted text>
Yes. The global surface IS warming. Nobody said or even implied that it would be uniform everywhere. In fact, the whole issue of 'climate change' is about the fact that it will NOT be uniform. All you demonstrate is your ignorance or deliberate stupidity.
<quoted text>
No. GHGs are generally 'well mixed' over the planet. Cooling from sulphate aerosols (i.e smog) is localized though since it is not as persistent in the atmosphere as the gases. This is simple grade one stuff. You need to understand a topic before you bust out with bullship..
<quoted text>
Two reasons. One is that the emissions from one year are spread downwind almost immediately. The coal smog from the Mississippi valley doesn't STAY in the Mississippi valley does it? In fact, the states and countries downwind enjoy the pollution. Same with CO2 emissions except that they are mixed over the entire globe.
Secondly, the rise of 0,9C or so in (global average surface temperature) is not disruptive. BUT it affects processes such as the shear in the jet stream that DOES change where heat energy is moved (i.e arctic air can move south easier). This is the consequent CLIMATE CHANGE driven by AGW.
<quoted text>
The problem is global. The US did produce a lot of the emissions that are in the current atmosphere but nobody is singling them out, nor can the US stop it alone. Please read SOMETHING about it.. The old whine about the US being 'picked on' by other countries is just bafflegab.
<quoted text>
You call us idiots when you confuse global climate with local weather????
Again, you demonstrate the total stupidity of those who cannot understand or do not WANT to understand the science or evidence.
Tell somebody who gives a sh*&t.

Stay in Canada and put out some of those forest fires that are smoking up Minnesota.

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 Texas poised to pass 'sanctuary city' ban with ... 36 min Retribution 3
News Paul Ryan budget proposal threatens housing aid... 8 hr Justicia 136
News Domestic disturbance suspect shot dead by Fort ... 8 hr Laredo 1
News El Paso leaders condemn Sessions' remarks about... Tue UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 72
News Dog sniffs out hefty load of drugs at border Tue UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 22
News Sean Spicer: Trump 'has a heart' on immigration Tue tomin cali 1
News Republican Cracks Emerging in Trump's Coal-Heav... Tue Retribution 3
More from around the web