• Sections
Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 63574 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

#38343 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Correlation is NOT causation. And you are totally innumerate.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.
False. Constant is a relative term. One can be standing still in terms of cm of movement and yet find random swings in your movement on the nanometer scale. But you ARE 'standing still'.

This analogy applies here. The sun is a VERY stable star and the graph proves it. The scale of the chart shows that these minor variances in the solar constant run from 1365.1 to 1366.7 which is only a total variance of 1.6 watts/m*m or .11%. Blowing up the scale to make it SEEM like a lot is dishonest. And a change of such small magnitude will have an effect of LESS than 0.2C based on forcing so there is no logic to the idea that the two are truly related. so there IS a normal 'mean' for solar output of about 1366 w/m*m and the solar constant IS 'constant' in terms of it's effect on global temperatures.

You will never make a convincing case with such false connections. And the graphs is not a very good 'correlation'. Any rising signal will look a lot like any other rising signal, but that is not a 'correlation'. It is just a problem with human perceptions. The R value of the CET to the temperature is NOT very good.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

#38344 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.
Oh, my GOD! You really want me to believe 'the dog ate my homework' is your argument??? What are you? Seven?
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...
There are always contrarians and scientists trying to make ANY claim. But none of these has made ANY attempt to address the two points I made which is why none of them get much respect or citations.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
dont drink the koolaid
#38345 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
They never were. That was a lie by the denialists. The only concern of the scientists was that the warming has to go SOMEWHERE and they couldn't see it in the land and ocean at the time. The result is that they discovered that the oceans were warming to deeper levels than expected. This was the surprise, not the variability of the air temperature chart.
You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?
Correct.
The scientists "couldn't see' where the warming went because Not One Single Climate Model predicted where the missing energy went so these climate experts did not know where to begin to look.

To this day the experts are guessing (without benefit of a climate model that successfully forecast this mystery) the energy is "SOMEWHERE" in the oceans and perhaps someday they may find it :-)

Too funny because; Time And Time Again these facts do not in the slightest way shake the faith of the true believers in CAGW.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

#38346 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you.
You probably mean simple minded. That is your bag..
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things.
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history ..
True. But it is a very hazy description. Like defining an elephant and then discovering a mouse that fits.. because it is gray, four legged, with a tail, etc. To be a description it must be somewhat better defined by the scientists that want to prove the connection. I am correct, as you say and without that 'definition' of what is a MWP, it would fit ANY warming period, which is to say that it is meaningless since ANY area will warm or cool somewhat within the four centuries of your 'definiton'. The description is so loose it could fit a mouse or an elephant.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America
Exactly. It is a period that is documented in Western Europe and defined by the change there. But those change are not even consistent within Western Eurpope in time or temperature. They are a wide range from the UK to Denmark. The UK got the most dramatic change for the simple reason that it is almost certainly a result of changes to the Rossby wave transport of heat to Europe and thus the 'western edge' got the most heating.

The SHAPE of the warming is interesting too. It was rougjly a dramatic shift followed by a slow return to 'normal'. A 'impulse response' in classic physics.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

#38347 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
This description of an 'elephant' would fit a mouse quite well. So what have we. A warm (maybe cool) period within a four century span (maybe with cool (or warm) periods in it. Hell.. This is like describing an elephant and fitting it to an armadillo..
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science.
To have an 'inter-hemisphere' change you must have either transport of heat by ocean currents (which takes many centuries) or you must have an external change (such as a major warming of the sun, a nearby supernova, etc. It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ. That pig won't fly.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

#38348 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined...
And takes absolutely no thought or reasoning skills, which seems to suit you to a T.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
'Belief' based on evidence is called "knowledge" and it is very popular among serious scientists who are the basis for AGW theory.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....
Good luck.
-koolaid
My SECOND point was that to have a synchronous period of warming (i.e a global MWP) you need a SOURCE OF ENERGY equal to the task. And this has NOT been addressed. AGW has taken over a century of warming to add a degree of warming. Depending on your definition and where you are taking your measurements, the MWP is a warming of several degrees in only a few years. NO source of energy currently known or documented could supply this. The 'global MWP' does not pass the 'smell test'.

You have certainly provided a lot of verbiage in you post but no reasoning or critical thinking. You do NOT address either of my REASONED objections. You have no case.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
dont drink the koolaid
#38349 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always contrarians and scientists trying to make ANY claim. But none of these has made ANY attempt to address the two points I made which is why none of them get much respect or citations.
<quoted text>
I am impressed at the speed that you read and analized (sic) 74700 scholarly papers and found every one lacking in the ability to address your "two points".
If I recall; there also does not exist a single scholarly paper that can, in your mind, successfully challenge your idea that CO2 is "unnecessary" for life on Earth :-)
Belief systems are fascinating.
May your faith give you peace,
-koolaid

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
dont drink the koolaid
#38350 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
This description of an 'elephant' would fit a mouse quite well. So what have we. A warm (maybe cool) period within a four century span (maybe with cool (or warm) periods in it. Hell.. This is like describing an elephant and fitting it to an armadillo..
<quoted text>
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
<quoted text>
To have an 'inter-hemisphere' change you must have either transport of heat by ocean currents (which takes many centuries) or you must have an external change (such as a major warming of the sun, a nearby supernova, etc. It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ. That pig won't fly.
Yes,
"It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ."
That is why it seemed odd that my can of deodorant which I spray in Minnesota was responsible for the Ozone hole over Antarctica! The "Experts" knew of the ITCZ back then but for some reason it was not relevant to chlorofluorocarbons.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That pig won't fly.
Fun Facts
#38351 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Correlation is NOT causation. And you are totally innumerate.
<quoted text>
False. Constant is a relative term. One can be standing still in terms of cm of movement and yet find random swings in your movement on the nanometer scale. But you ARE 'standing still'.
This analogy applies here. The sun is a VERY stable star and the graph proves it. The scale of the chart shows that these minor variances in the solar constant run from 1365.1 to 1366.7 which is only a total variance of 1.6 watts/m*m or .11%..
Not quite, but good try. The graph shows that the last half of the 20th century was higher than the prior 400 years in the maximum activity.

What it also shows is the minimum activity was much higher than at any other time in the last 400 years.

Kinda like the AGW statements about the low temps. That nighttime lows are not as low as they used to be. The Met Office made a statement it's not about how hot is gets but more about how cold it doesn't get.

Well in the last half of the 20th century, the sun didn't get very 'cold'.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Fun Facts
#38352 Aug 23, 2013

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38353 Aug 23, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...
The problem with
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.
At one time there was the concept of a solar constant. We know now and the graph above illustrates that there is no solar constant. The proponents of AGW hold on to the solar constant by saying the variations we have measured are very small.
In 1991 we experienced the Pinatubo eruption. This volcano put particulate matter into the atmosphere that acted in the same way as clouds and reduced incoming solar energy. This happened at a time when we were measuring TSI mechanically.
"After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun's rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/vie...
The 30 months following Pinatubo earth experienced cooling up to .6*C. As the aerosols cleared the very high activity of cycle 22 was unblocked by the 'clouds of aerosols' and warming resumed.
The sun has a range of activity that is thought to be very small but within that range, the highs and the lows can impact earth significantly.
During the last 35 years the total solat irradiation has decreased slightly while the global temperature has been rising.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#38354 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...
Yeah, I've written lengthy responses and lost them too, but I've learned how to fix that.

Not telling you how; don't need your lengthy responses containing nothing, maybe you'll figure it out one day.

Hopefully not.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
dont drink the koolaid
#38355 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably mean simple minded. That is your bag..
<quoted text>
True. But it is a very hazy description. Like defining an elephant and then discovering a mouse that fits.. because it is gray, four legged, with a tail, etc. To be a description it must be somewhat better defined by the scientists that want to prove the connection. I am correct, as you say and without that 'definition' of what is a MWP, it would fit ANY warming period, which is to say that it is meaningless since ANY area will warm or cool somewhat within the four centuries of your 'definiton'. The description is so loose it could fit a mouse or an elephant.
<quoted text>
Exactly. It is a period that is documented in Western Europe and defined by the change there. But those change are not even consistent within Western Eurpope in time or temperature. They are a wide range from the UK to Denmark. The UK got the most dramatic change for the simple reason that it is almost certainly a result of changes to the Rossby wave transport of heat to Europe and thus the 'western edge' got the most heating.
The SHAPE of the warming is interesting too. It was rougjly a dramatic shift followed by a slow return to 'normal'. A 'impulse response' in classic physics.
Dear LessHypeMoreFact,
Are you OK?
You appear to be personally attacking yourself and denigrating your own arguments in your post above.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
And your criticism of the papers are from your supporting arguments written by Dr. M. Mann.
Hope you feel clear of mind and can return to us in good sted.
-koolaid

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
dont drink the koolaid
#38356 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, my GOD! You really want me to believe 'the dog ate my homework' is your argument??? What are you? Seven?
<quoted text>
There are always contrarians and scientists trying to make ANY claim. But none of these has made ANY attempt to address the two points I made which is why none of them get much respect or citations.
<quoted text>
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
Apparently my "homework" did post.
dont drink the koolaid
#38357 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I've written lengthy responses and lost them too, but I've learned how to fix that.
Not telling you how; don't need your lengthy responses containing nothing, maybe you'll figure it out one day.
Hopefully not.
Yeah, can be frustrating at times...
And I understand why you wish to not share.
Secrets are all the rage in the field of Proprietary Climate Studies.

May you find peace in your faith,
-koolaid

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#38358 Aug 23, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The scientists "couldn't see' where the warming went because Not One Single Climate Model predicted where the missing energy went so these climate experts did not know where to begin to look.
To this day the experts are guessing (without benefit of a climate model that successfully forecast this mystery) the energy is "SOMEWHERE" in the oceans and perhaps someday they may find it :-)
Too funny because; Time And Time Again these facts do not in the slightest way shake the faith of the true believers in CAGW.
<quoted text>
Let me TRY, and I emphasize TRY, to straighten you and the other contrarians out.

Not One Single Climate Model is perfect.

Not One Single Climate Model is chiseled in stone.

Not One Single Climate Model is Fate, boy.(You believe in Fate, boy?)

Climate models are the best estimation of events that could possibly happen. For all their failings, they are pretty damn good. And the information that we have seen lately indicates that they err on the conservative side. Their inaccuracy seems to be in not forecasting the severity already seen and the seriousness of what's coming.

IF...this slowdown in the rate of warming is supposed to be a precursor to a genuine cooling, then I need you to tell me what is reversing a 100+ year trend. Tell us (and back it up) what the models missed that is suddenly causing a reversal of warming.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1
#38359 Aug 23, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>as a grandpa you don't really show much wisdom for your years. Son seems to be more fitting for someone who only cares about his self interests above all else.
And "boy" fits your comments pretty well too. How old are you, boy, twenty-something?

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38360 Aug 23, 2013

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38361 Aug 23, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And "boy" fits your comments pretty well too. How old are you, boy, twenty-something?
no, son, I'm not.
Lol

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#38362 Aug 23, 2013

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Politics Discussions

Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Cheech the Conser... 1,509,619
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Uncle Tab 262,463
Collapse of Obamacare repeal plan puts Freedom ... 3 min Denny CranesPlace 200
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min NotSoDivineMsM 239,535
Ivanka Trump: A White House force, just not an ... 3 min Trump your President 187
Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 4 min You got what you ... 1,289
Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 8 min swampmudd 7,650

US Politics News

More US Politics News from Topix »

More from around the web