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

There are 53443 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.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42544 Jan 7, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.--------- So SpaceBlues, what about all the millions of years of global warming before humans where even on the planet? Must be George Bush's fault.
Pitiful argument. Tell us which one of those historic events is causing global warming today. You cannot do that but will not admit that mankind has anything to do with it, even though you know that burning fossil fuels is releasing tons of the greenhouse CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#42545 Jan 7, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can't make a valid argument, bring up Al Gore. Get lost.
When you can't admit an inconvenient truth, you demonstrate you inability to have serious discussions.

Run along sonny... the sky's falling somewhere.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#42546 Jan 7, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.--------- So SpaceBlues, what about all the millions of years of global warming before humans where even on the planet? Must be George Bush's fault.
Your bias is based on ignorance. LOL.

How? Do continue the same piece:

These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.

NASA satellites record a host of vital signs including atmospheric aerosols (particles from both natural sources and human activities, such as factories, fires, deserts, and erupting volcanoes), atmospheric gases (including greenhouse gases), energy radiated from Earth’s surface and the Sun, ocean surface temperature changes, global sea level, the extent of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice, plant growth, rainfall, cloud structure, and more.

On the ground, many agencies and nations support networks of weather and climate-monitoring stations that maintain temperature, rainfall, and snow depth records, and buoys that measure surface water and deep ocean temperatures. Taken together, these measurements provide an ever-improving record of both natural events and human activity for the past 150 years.

Scientists integrate these measurements into climate models to recreate temperatures recorded over the past 150 years. Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.

Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years.

Got it? You can read the rest and study the graphs which cover until 2011. The last graph covers: Satellite measurements show warming in the troposphere (lower atmosphere, green line) but cooling in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere, red line). This vertical pattern is consistent with global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, but inconsistent with warming from natural causes.(Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Remote Sensing Systems, sponsored by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program.)

Got it? You asked about millions of years ago - IOW, the geologic temperature record. What about it? Have you read the Wikipedia?
University

Los Angeles, CA

#42547 Jan 7, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can't make a valid argument, bring up Al Gore. Get lost.
You need to stop watching the weather channel and turn on the Climate Channel.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#42548 Jan 7, 2014
climate change claptrap wrote:
......global warming has caused EXTREME climate change temperatures.
Glad you agree.......
AGW enhanced southern warm fronts push hard into the NP region, raising spiky temperatures as much as 10-14degC. above normal. Simultaneously, the AGW enhanced warm fronts push Arctic cold fronts south. Thus, people get cold feet. Touched toxic topix AGW deniers & whiners (d&w) get EXTREME-ly cold feet.
1 post removed

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42550 Jan 7, 2014
Damn, Damn those facts again. You warmist are killing my agenda. Can you not cover up these facts? Worthless pukes. I pay you and you FAIL me.

These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves

One British town is in the renewable energy game for the long run — literally. The town bought two wind turbines that will take more than four centuries to pay for themselves.

The BBC reports that the two wind turbines installed in the English town of Rushcliffe will not likely produce any financial benefits for the town. Rushcliffe spent nearly $50,000 in 2004 installing the wind turbines at a county park, which doesn’t actually get much wind.

“Due to higher than anticipated maintenance costs and relatively low generation rates, it is unlikely the council will make a financial saving within the anticipated lifespan of the turbine,” said the Rushcliffe Borough Council.

The wind turbines’ poor location and mechanical problems mean that it only produced 477 kilowatt hours in 2012 and 2013. Last year, the turbine only generated about $121 worth of power, meaning that it would take 405 years for them to pay for themselves.

The Rushcliffe council, however, contended that the “meter wasn’t operating properly” and that the two turbines usually produce 3,478 kilowatt hours annually — which would still mean a 55-year payback period.

This information was obtained by the UK Telegraph as part of an in-depth investigation on how the towns all across the United Kingdom are spending millions of dollars on wind turbines that are faulty and don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves.

“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” Telegraph reported.“Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.”

Only three out of a handful of the towns that responded to the Telegraph’s inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods under ten years.

“Wind energy is an experiment, and sometimes the lessons learnt are hard and dearly bought,” Dr. John Constable, director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, told the Telegraph.“The truth is that foolishly ambitious targets and silly levels of subsidy have overheated the wind industry, resulting in defective technologies and poor installations.”

In Scotland, wind power developers are being criticized for cutting down millions of trees to make room for wind turbines — all in the name of independence.

The Times of London reported that about five million trees have been cut down since 2007 in order to make way for wind farms. Only about 1,957 acres of woodland were planted after the wind farms were built.

The left-leaning Scottish National Party that wants to secede from the United Kingdom has often invoked renewable energy as a path to independence.

Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser told the Times,“the [Scottish National Party] is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.”

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42551 Jan 7, 2014
I am just glad I have minions like litethong and caveman to go back and vote up the warmist post and then clear history and do it over and over, and vote down our critics. It sure makes our stupidity look better. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#42552 Jan 7, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Damn, Damn those facts again. You warmist are killing my agenda. Can you not cover up these facts? Worthless pukes. I pay you and you FAIL me.
These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves
..........
After you finished ranting TOTAL BS on cost of renewable energy. A coal fired plant cost around $1 BILLION dollars to build, a Gas one around $780-800 million. Ask how long it would take to pay that back ??? You deniers make yourselves look stupid every day. Green energy makes much more sense for small communities because the cost of fossil fuelled plants would be far greater.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#42553 Jan 7, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
After you finished ranting TOTAL BS on cost of renewable energy. A coal fired plant cost around $1 BILLION dollars to build, a Gas one around $780-800 million. Ask how long it would take to pay that back ??? You deniers make yourselves look stupid every day. Green energy makes much more sense for small communities because the cost of fossil fuelled plants would be far greater.
Lets not forget those damn, DAMNED I say little problems we are now getting to, the pollution and poisoned water from getting that gas. Yes, Lets please hide those facts. As for price, well.........Natural-gas-fired power plant planned on 30 acres in Oregon

North American Project Development LLC, a Boston-based energy group, announced plans Wednesday to build an 800-megawatt plant on a 30-plus-acre site just south of the BP-Husky Oil Toledo Refinery in Oregon. Officials say the plant would provide enough power to meet the annual electricity needs of about 500,000 homes. The project is expected to cost about $850 million.

Those are PROJECTED cost, and we know how those pesky projected numbers go. But hey, lets build it and make CERTAIN we keep that news of the ground water pollution from gas drilling a secret.

I have to make more money to pay for my private jets and to pay the power bills at my big mansions.
1 post removed

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42555 Jan 8, 2014
total idiots r us wrote:
<quoted text>oh but 'mothra', you miss the point.
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com
More heavy tunes/ritedownthemiddle sock puppets- need to get a new keyboard- that broken shift key is making it obvious.
1 post removed
GLOBAL COOLING UNDERWAY

Monroe, NC

#42557 Jan 8, 2014
In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time...

“Allcladrad”

Since: Jan 10

Bangkok, Thailand

#42558 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz,
Hard to imagine a global problem where some countries pass a law reducing something that will protect them, while others suffer,

Global warming theorists continually shoot them selves in the foot with inane arguments like that. You are your causes worst enemy.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#42559 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You Flat Earther's are all the same, it's been decades and billion$ spent on finding a cure for cancer why haven't you come out about that scam for funding or finding a cure for Aids.
But climate science is singled out as a world wide scam because ????????
I have. Where have you been. Today is the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the war on crime. Why is this war still going on?
Oh, as a side note: libbies are the the flat earthers.
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
or did Rush tell you or was it Hannity or did this light bulb moment just happen to coincide with both.
Um, we're talking science facts here.and not entertainment. That facts based upon simple laws of physics.

It's so cold here...

How cold is it?

It's so cold that Democrats are keeping their own hands in their own pockets!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#42560 Jan 8, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. It is not because they started with the year with a particularly active El nino? Good grief, some folks will believe anything. If anything, this discredits Mr. Watts biased agenda.
Now you guys are re-writing simple math?
A decade is ten years. Not one year. Pfft!

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#42561 Jan 8, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>No no. Hurricane's are because of George Bush's hurricane machine that is sponsored by that evil Dick Cheney and Halliburton or didnt you get that memo? we gotta make sure we dont confuse the two. Dastardly weather machines dont count toward global warming/cooling/heating/change or what ever its called this week.
Or HAARP. Let's not forget HAARP. LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#42562 Jan 8, 2014
El oh El wrote:
<quoted text>the following is taken from NASA.com ------In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.
Damn! Now NASA is whining! And to make such statements without scientific basis to boot!

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#42563 Jan 8, 2014
REAL planet lovers and REAL progressives are skeptics who doubt, challenge and question all authority not goosestep like fear mongering Greenizs condemning billions of innocent children to the greenhouse gas ovens with science’s consensus belief of nothing beyond; “could be”. Now who’s the neocon?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#42564 Jan 8, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh now Time magazine is not credible, its one US publication that has more credibility worldwide than any other.
LOL Especially when they stated just the opposite of their claims in 1974?

Are they now the waffle magazine of credibility??

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/01/07/time...

A must read. So very credible that TIME magazine!!!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#42565 Jan 8, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Damn, Damn those facts again. You warmist are killing my agenda. Can you not cover up these facts? Worthless pukes. I pay you and you FAIL me.
These two wind turbines will take four centuries to pay for themselves
One British town is in the renewable energy game for the long run — literally. The town bought two wind turbines that will take more than four centuries to pay for themselves.
The BBC reports that the two wind turbines installed in the English town of Rushcliffe will not likely produce any financial benefits for the town. Rushcliffe spent nearly $50,000 in 2004 installing the wind turbines at a county park, which doesn’t actually get much wind.
“Due to higher than anticipated maintenance costs and relatively low generation rates, it is unlikely the council will make a financial saving within the anticipated lifespan of the turbine,” said the Rushcliffe Borough Council.
The wind turbines’ poor location and mechanical problems mean that it only produced 477 kilowatt hours in 2012 and 2013. Last year, the turbine only generated about $121 worth of power, meaning that it would take 405 years for them to pay for themselves.
The Rushcliffe council, however, contended that the “meter wasn’t operating properly” and that the two turbines usually produce 3,478 kilowatt hours annually — which would still mean a 55-year payback period.
This information was obtained by the UK Telegraph as part of an in-depth investigation on how the towns all across the United Kingdom are spending millions of dollars on wind turbines that are faulty and don’t generate enough revenue to pay for themselves.
“Some turbines generate so little energy they would take hundreds of years to repay their original value,” Telegraph reported.“Experts argue that the failure of some wind turbines to recoup their value shows how small wind turbines are a poor way to generate renewable energy.”
Only three out of a handful of the towns that responded to the Telegraph’s inquiries had wind turbines with payback periods under ten years.
“Wind energy is an experiment, and sometimes the lessons learnt are hard and dearly bought,” Dr. John Constable, director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, told the Telegraph.“The truth is that foolishly ambitious targets and silly levels of subsidy have overheated the wind industry, resulting in defective technologies and poor installations.”
In Scotland, wind power developers are being criticized for cutting down millions of trees to make room for wind turbines — all in the name of independence.
The Times of London reported that about five million trees have been cut down since 2007 in order to make way for wind farms. Only about 1,957 acres of woodland were planted after the wind farms were built.
The left-leaning Scottish National Party that wants to secede from the United Kingdom has often invoked renewable energy as a path to independence.
Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser told the Times,“the [Scottish National Party] is so blindly obsessed with renewable energy that it doesn’t mind destroying another important environmental attribute to make way for it.”
This is simply an example of a poorly vetted application of wind power. Normally the cost of a commercial turbine and instillation is paid back in a few months to a year. They are a viable alternate energy. Iowa is producing about 25% of their power from wind.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#42566 Jan 8, 2014
BOSTON and WASHINGTON, Jan. 8, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- A total of 311 U.S. and international environmental and clean energy groups said today that, while they respect the climate change work of Dr. James Hansen and three of his academic colleagues, they take strong exception to the notion that nuclear power is the solution to global warming.

The January 8th statement from the more than 300 signers reads in part: "Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publically financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the US is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire – high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we've experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually 'fail safe'.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RoxLo 1,231,694
News 'Quid Pro Quo'? Clinton faces new scrutiny over... 4 min Le Jimbo 102
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Le Jimbo 182,182
News Is God judging America? (Dec '10) 6 min kuda 335
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min MADRONE 163,604
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 10 min Who 1,906
News Archives show Hillary Clinton OK'd tax breaks f... 10 min Le Jimbo 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min positronium 189,577
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 19 min Coffee Party 328,212
More from around the web