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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
35,841 - 35,860 of 46,375 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#38190 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Only for morons and deniers. FACT: Science says that warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. Only a denier or a moron would ignore the ocean heat gain - 93.4% of the total - after having surely been exposed to the error repeatedly.
The next thing to be introduced by the deniers will be "body temperature" claiming it hasn't risen either. You can at least be assured that none of these ppl will ever end up the next Steve Jobs or Einstein.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38191 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Not correct. There's no detectable logic involved in your conclusion.
<quoted text>
Depends on what you take the temperature of, nitwit. If you take the temperature of the entire planet, warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. If you ignore all but 6.6% of the Earth, you get a slower warming. Even then, all 10 of the warmest years in the last 150+ are since '98.
If you include the oceans, where 93.4% of the warming tends to go, it's clear how screwed we'll be when the Pacific oscillates the other way.
Denier scum.
Deniers need no logic or science for that matter. Mostly a waste of time to try to have a discussion with them when they will not allow data from the experts.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38192 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even understand how ignorant your posts have been. That is really the crazy part. If I had posted all the total misunderstanding of the temperature data you posted yesterday, Fair Game would of come out of his hole and whupped my a*s. But since Fair Game is anything but fair, we will just hear crickets.
Ha, and your ignorance of the figures extends much farther back than yesterday.

No misunderstanding, Tim, temporary confusion...brain fart.

Better luck next time.
gcaveman1

Ellisville, MS

#38193 Aug 19, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What dataset are you using. What are the decades compared too?
Which dataset has 2010 as 0.659 anomaly. The highest of the 4 datasets I have seen has 2010 at 0.56 C. We haven't even reached 2014 so what are you talking about?
NOAA/NCDC.

I believe it's compared to the 1901-2000 record.

We haven't reached 2014? No shit, Sherlock. But we're within the 2004-2014 record, aren't we?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38194 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
That you weave. The instrumental record you yammer about conveniently leaves out the oceans - the sink for 93.4% of the heat gained.
Denier scum.
prove it, putz!!
or just admit you're lying scum.

that co2 is like a slippery eel.....when you have no explanation for where it went. AND, the responsible party (co2, yeah right) keeps increasing!!

your lies and blind faith would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

grow up, son!! breathe the air.....life is good....in spite of your fear of your own shadow.

LOL

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38195 Aug 19, 2013
NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE ABOUT STATING THEIR POSITION ON RFS2!!!!!!!

did they not mention that in your playbook????

come on kids, you can do better!!!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38196 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Only for morons and deniers. FACT: Science says that warming has accelerated in the last 15 yrs. Only a denier or a moron would ignore the ocean heat gain - 93.4% of the total - after having surely been exposed to the error repeatedly.
kyle, do you always let your opinions block your mind from reality and truth?

stop lying to yourself.

be a man....face the music!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38197 Aug 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Desperate much? LOL!
are you?:-/

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38198 Aug 19, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The next thing to be introduced by the deniers will be "body temperature" claiming it hasn't risen either. You can at least be assured that none of these ppl will ever end up the next Steve Jobs or Einstein.
really? is that what you think? oh, you're just trying to pull some chains......emotion is your standard....not logic or science. I GET IT!!!!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38199 Aug 19, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, and your ignorance of the figures extends much farther back than yesterday.
No misunderstanding, Tim, temporary confusion...brain fart.
Better luck next time.
still waiting on your response about rfs2!!!!!

i can't believe you don't know what that is....and champion yourself on this thread in being "in the know"!

LOL!!!!!
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38200 Aug 20, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
When the science of climate change sounds like it's being written by The Onion, it's time to abandon ship. So AGW has now been completely flipped. Those arguing that temperatures would rise at least 0.2 per decade due to the fact that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures and climate are now telling us that nature is going to be the main driver for another 20 years on top of the already 13 years, totally 33 years. That main driver of the climate, CO2, is just hiding out right now, just waiting to blow up in 2040. And you know that whole thing about weather is not climate, we really meant weather is climate. On all of this, we are completely clear. Oh and then after using dying polar bears in every presentation about the catastrophic effects of climate/weather change, the IPCC guy says this: In terms of impact on wildlife, the focus has been made not just on flagship species, such as the polar bear, which, as it turns out, is apparently able to adjust, more or less, this after they told us the polar bear populations were dying off.
What is really scary is caveman and the like. When caveman posted this the other day,
"Let me ask again; are you sure about these numbers? They all show warmth above the average. And, they are from HadCRUT4, NOAA NCDC, NASA GISS, and the WMO? Can you really trust these four organizations, after everything else they have SAID?"
I couldn't understand what he was babbling on and on about because I had just explained how he was wrong on that NOAA prediction. He then blamed the mix up on too much coffee, so I gave him a pass. I take that back. It then hit me, that he thinks any number over the average of the 20th century is proof we are still warming. He truly has no understanding of what the numbers mean, what to compare the numbers to, etc. He truly believes we are lying and that there has been no standstill or even slight cooling and he is going around presenting the Al Gore Dirty Weather Show. People like that are scary.
The IPCC is definitely prepared for a long period of No Warming, possibly due to a solar minimum . Fun Facts posts on here, he's studied solar for quite some time so you might watch for his posts.

As for caveman, anyone who claims they lost track of 10 years of data in one morning b......t , you fill in the blank.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#38201 Aug 20, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>prove it, putz!!
or just admit you're lying scum.
that co2 is like a slippery eel.....when you have no explanation for where it went. AND, the responsible party (co2, yeah right) keeps increasing!!
your lies and blind faith would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
grow up, son!! breathe the air.....life is good....in spite of your fear of your own shadow.
LOL
With Kyle, the proof is the same post several more times with extra expletives.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#38205 Aug 20, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The IPCC is definitely prepared for a long period of No Warming, possibly due to a solar minimum .
Lie. They are prepared for a period of stable or lower AIR temperatures due to climate influences from rising cool water in the Pacific (ENSO, La-Nina). This is a flaw in the use of meteorology data to track AGW (global average surface temperature of which 98% is land and water).
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38206 Aug 20, 2013
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38207 Aug 20, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Done. Note that this is old news:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-...
"With any luck, the paper will be published in a few months (it was) and we'll have more to say on the subject at that time (they have). In the meantime, Levitus et al. have once again reminded us that although the surface warming may have been dampened in recent years, global warming hasn't magically vanished, and that heat stored in the oceans will eventually come back to haunt us."
You've been shown to be wrong. A rational and honest person would now admit it. Can you?
Here is a news article from 2009:

World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns. New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Niño southern oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming sceptics.

The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December's climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/j...

When reading the comments section to this article, a poster said this:

“Contrary to the subheading, rapid warming in the next five years certainly will not silence the sceptics-- it's hard to imagine that anything could. They'll just say that it's solar activity, as they've said all along, and El Niño, nothing to do with us, and not worth lifting a finger to do anything about it.”

Funny how it’s the alarmists that keep trying to explain the standstill.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38208 Aug 20, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
The IPCC is definitely prepared for a long period of No Warming, possibly due to a solar minimum ..
True. All the talk of natural variations causing the slow down or pause in temperature increases is interesting. When temps were going up, no one talked about natural variations causing it to go up. Now that temps are not going up natural variations are being considered.

Temperatures in my area are lower than in the last 25 years. We had a 73*F high one day in July, and hit a record low of 60*F. Didn't get our first 100*F day until June. Our spring was cool as compared to the last 25 years.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#38209 Aug 20, 2013
Cycle 24 as compared to the last three cycles. Cycle 21 began in 1976.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38210 Aug 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
True. All the talk of natural variations causing the slow down or pause in temperature increases is interesting. When temps were going up, no one talked about natural variations causing it to go up. Now that temps are not going up natural variations are being considered.
.
Excellent observation, "fun facts"!!
Another point of interest is that all severe weather events seem to be the result of "man made dirty weather" when those events are near populated areas that receive a lot of media coverage.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38211 Aug 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
No Warming said you have studied solar impacts. There is so much information out there and it gets crazy trying to sift through it. Some scientists have said that the increase in sun spots over the last 100 years has made the Earth warmer, but then alarmists say in the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. They say the sun has been going in a cooling trend, but global temperatures are going up.

What is your take on this?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38212 Aug 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Cycle 24 as compared to the last three cycles. Cycle 21 began in 1976.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison...
Looking at the chart, it seems that cycle 23 starting in 1996 and ending in 2008 does fit into the standstill we are seeing in temperatures. Do you have a prediction of where you think temperatures will go during this solar cycle?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min ChristineM 115,331
US senator calls Russiaa s actions in Ukraine a... 18 min Cordwainer Trout 6
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 34 min Samantha B 2,008
New fear: What happens in Ferguson if no charges? 40 min Samantha B 260
Immigrants hope President Obama will end deport... 46 min suppressed by the... 11
Judge temporarily blocks law that could close a... 53 min Asian Guy 2
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Freespirit8 256,991
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr Stu Rumsfeld 1,101,343
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 2 hr christlike420 2,237
MEGA LEEK - McKayla Maroney Nude Cell Phone Pic... 4 hr McKayla Maroney Nude 1
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 4 hr FedinIL 1,620
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••