Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 54356 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.

Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44240 Mar 14, 2014
Al Goreís number about the 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs comes from James Hansen, but itís really no big deal. An explanation of the math via Watts Up With That:

1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source

Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)

Hansen says increase in forcing is ď400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per dayĒ, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.

A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.

Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.

To convert Hansenís figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres Ö which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre Ö in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre Ö we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.

And this is the reason we call these people alarmists. They canít make their point without scary sounding, but dubious, statements.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/373...
dem

United States

#44241 Mar 14, 2014
Mothra wrote:
What Was the Carbon Footprint of the President’s Visit to NYC?

I only ask because Senate Democrats want America to focus on climate change issues and if we’re to take them seriously, then cutting carbon emissions should start at home.

For example, President Obama traveled to New York City yesterday, first landing at JFK airport on his 747, and then helicoptering to Manhattan for two fundraisers and a shopping trip at the GAP. That¬ís a lot of carbon emissions for a trip that wasn¬ít necessary. And yet, I can find no criticism from the pajama-party caucus of climate-alarmist Senate Democrats criticizing the president¬ís carbon-spewing trip. Since one of the president¬ís fundraisers was to help raise money for Senate Democrats in 2014, I¬ím inclined to believe that maybe ¬ó just maybe ¬Ė Dems put raising money for their reelection campaigns ahead of climate change.

But Senate Dems are not alone in putting other issues ahead of climate change. Gallup has a new poll out that lists climate change second-to-last on a list of issues that worry Americans. Like the alarmist Dems, Americans don’t really care about climate change, either.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/373...
Good thinking you stupid tea bag azzhole. At least you can look forward to being a laughing stock disgraced jagoff like the Birthers.
dem

United States

#44242 Mar 14, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>you have the upper hand in one department, son!!

bushwhackeyweed really sux at this......but you suck big time, hombre!!

lol
Figures this co ck suck ing idiot would be here with the other flat earthers.
dem

United States

#44245 Mar 14, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
are you stalking me again, ya kweer idiot?

go pick up your dead relatives, paco.

besides....your kind here wouldn't approve of all your gas guzzling vehicles that you're always boasting about, son.

and stop obsessing about my co ck.
You telling these people your usual lies, pusscccee?
You right wing fake millionaires are hilarious. Problem is you post like a high school drop out. The kind of dumbfk azzhole you can find sucking co ck for a dollar behind his limo.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#44246 Mar 14, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"]are you stalking me.....[/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" likes to feel the winter-dead corn stalk up its butt, specially in the "down wrong gully"!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#44250 Mar 14, 2014
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thinking you stupid tea bag azzhole. At least you can look forward to being a laughing stock disgraced jagoff like the Birthers.
He presents facts and figures and you ignore it by name calling? Yea, that's why we laugh at you warm earthers.
dum

Gurnee, IL

#44252 Mar 14, 2014
dum bass wrote:
<quoted text>
Kills you that your vette money went to buying your ex wife's titties huh?
Maybe the young dude that is fkn those fun bags now will let you go for a ride in his vette?
And I told you to stop carrying on like a beitch about the vette. It's the z28 that you should be envious of.
I gots a jacked up chevy shortbed on 44s that gets 3/4 a mile to the gallon you wanna burn some hydrocarbons

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#44256 Mar 14, 2014
Mothra wrote:
What Was the Carbon Footprint of the Presidentís Visit to NYC?
I only ask because Senate Democrats want America to focus on climate change issues and if weíre to take them seriously, then cutting carbon emissions should start at home.
,,,,,,,,,,
Last time I checked we haven't got solar powered warp speed transport as yet. If we had a price on carbon, then someone would be working on it in their garage as we speak.
Besides, under your precious free market system it's always the little people that make all the difference, the rich can be as wasteful as they want. That's how it works, people will always live the lifestyle they can afford and some go beyond that. Pricing carbon just forces less people driving around the streets in Ferrari's & big a$$ SUV's. it won't take them all off the road. You deniers readily accept the have's and the have-not's in the fossil economy, well surprise surprise it will be no different in a carbon economy.
That's the reality and just like those who will have power saving devices in their home making a smaller carbon footprint, the Whitehouse will still leave the lights on all night.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#44257 Mar 14, 2014
Mothra wrote:
Al Goreís number about the 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs comes from James Hansen, but itís really no big deal. An explanation of the math via Watts Up With That:
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
Hansen says increase in forcing is ď400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per dayĒ, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansenís figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres Ö which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre Ö in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre Ö we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
And this is the reason we call these people alarmists. They canít make their point without scary sounding, but dubious, statements.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/373...
Thanks. I'm hoping this information helps litesong back to peace and sound mind.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44258 Mar 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks. I'm hoping this information helps litesong back to peace and sound mind.
litesong is capable of doing a better calculation than this, but not you.

You don't even understand that there are scientific observations and calculations. The comment on accuracy is meaningless, duh.
JustAGreaseSpotN ow

United States

#44259 Mar 14, 2014
According to Rhode Island's governor, his entire state will be gone in...hell. There is just went.
JustAGreaseSpotN ow

United States

#44260 Mar 14, 2014
*it
Cary

Los Angeles, CA

#44261 Mar 14, 2014
dim and dum wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thinking you stupid tea bag azzhole. At least you can look forward to being a laughing stock disgraced jagoff like the Birthers.
Stop staring at his azz.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44262 Mar 14, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I checked we haven't got solar powered warp speed transport as yet. If we had a price on carbon, then someone would be working on it in their garage as we speak.
Besides, under your precious free market system it's always the little people that make all the difference, the rich can be as wasteful as they want. That's how it works, people will always live the lifestyle they can afford and some go beyond that. Pricing carbon just forces less people driving around the streets in Ferrari's & big a$$ SUV's. it won't take them all off the road. You deniers readily accept the have's and the have-not's in the fossil economy, well surprise surprise it will be no different in a carbon economy.
That's the reality and just like those who will have power saving devices in their home making a smaller carbon footprint, the Whitehouse will still leave the lights on all night.
The question was, "What Was the Carbon Footprint of the Presidentís Visit to NYC?"

Did you answer it? No.

Don't try again... you embarrass yourself.

Warmist motto: Do as we say, not as we do.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44263 Mar 14, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>litesong is capable of doing a better calculation than this, but not you.
You don't even understand that there are scientific observations and calculations. The comment on accuracy is meaningless, duh.
*poof*

More CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Hypocrite.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44265 Mar 14, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>provide a link to this for validation or explain your quantitative analysis which brought you to this conclusion. we need this information asap because global alarmists are the best and brightest!!!!!!!
right??
you can do this.......we rely on your opinions.....even though you don't. you just like to express them.
LOL. You can't do it yourself. As litesong would say, no teaching to you.

I had been posting close to a year about the number of daily hiroshimas. Not a comment except a silly one from ff late last year.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#44266 Mar 14, 2014
Mothra wrote:
Al Goreís number about the 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs comes from James Hansen, but itís really no big deal. An explanation of the math via Watts Up With That:
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
Hansen says increase in forcing is ď400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per dayĒ, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansenís figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres Ö which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre Ö in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre Ö we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
And this is the reason we call these people alarmists. They canít make their point without scary sounding, but dubious, statements.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/373...
Oooh look, you made a nasty-wasty, scary-wary big number into a teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy small number, now it's not scary any more.

Only problem with that infantile logic is... it's still the same thing.

Is 2.51e+19 joules/day or 0.6 watts per square metre of forcing a significant figure? Yes, to anybody who understands the climate.

Why? Because 30% of that 500 watts per square metre is reflected back into space, and the other 70% is radiated back- giving a total forcing of 0.

Now 0.6 compared to zero is a huge difference.

That's an energy imbalance that will set the ice caps melting, start the seasons changing and see plant and animal habitats moving.
SciMind

United States

#44267 Mar 14, 2014
I just read a lot of responses in here from people that have never even done any research of their own on this matter. Just a bunch of "facts" pulled from whatever source they pick and choose from to use for their argument. That is what is really disturbing.
dum

Gurnee, IL

#44268 Mar 14, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooh look, you made a nasty-wasty, scary-wary big number into a teeny weeny, itsy-bitsy small number, now it's not scary any more.
Only problem with that infantile logic is... it's still the same thing.
Is 2.51e+19 joules/day or 0.6 watts per square metre of forcing a significant figure? Yes, to anybody who understands the climate.
Why? Because 30% of that 500 watts per square metre is reflected back into space, and the other 70% is radiated back- giving a total forcing of 0.
Now 0.6 compared to zero is a huge difference.
That's an energy imbalance that will set the ice caps melting, start the seasons changing and see plant and animal habitats moving.
Why don't Yins take a bunch a mirrors up nort and reflect it back and then tell everyone to use white shingles on there house and then paint the roads white duh!
Craig

Los Angeles, CA

#44273 Mar 14, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>provide a link to this for validation or explain your quantitative analysis which brought you to this conclusion. we need this information asap because global alarmists are the best and brightest!!!!!!!
right??
you can do this.......we rely on your opinions.....even though you don't. you just like to express them.
I have some NASA info on the subject that proves idiots like you might be retarded.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min Nutter 336,640
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 190,075
Loosing Innocent Lives In An Airstrike: Do the ... 1 min Fairn gulink 620
News Disgruntled GOP voters provide the Trump bump 1 min Your Ex 92
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 1 min MORMON HUMAN RIGH... 81
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 min Shizle 10,771
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Incognito4Ever 1,263,790
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Coffee Party 194,519
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min messianic114 171,787
News Donald Trump blasts John McCain over 'crazies' ... 1 min LeDuped 646
More from around the web