Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60657 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

#44492 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
if man made climate change is so certain....why are you whackos behaving so hysterical? is it becasue science doesn't back up your beliefs quite so much?
Maybe they didn't get the memo.... a little "hide" hear, a "trick" there... mix in some homogenization.... and TADA!

It's proven!!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44493 Mar 18, 2014
Coal is King wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming Hoax money sink is about to get stopped:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03...
No Joke, NO..

From your link: Increasing amounts of CO2 and other gases caused by the burning of the oil, gas and coal that power our world are enhancing the natural "greenhouse effect," causing the planet to warm to levels that climate scientists say can't be linked to natural forces.

Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 "parts per million" (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. They're now near 400 ppm.
..

All of this comes against the backdrop of last week's CO2 rise above 400 ppm at Mauna Loa for the second straight year.(CO2 levels peak in the spring when plants come alive, then decrease when the plants die in the autumn.)

Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years.

"We are living in extraordinary times," Keeling said.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44494 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
From the rebuttals; " it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed."
Of course there are papers that take issue with many facets of global warming science. That is how science works. The ones from reputable scientific journals have been weighed and studied. Those that have found merit have been incorporated into the science. It is up to you to present those that support your rather loose position.
But I do not expect much other than more blather.
Do please give the whole context:

Under Rebuttals:

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is not a physical science paper.
Rebuttal: This is strawman argument as it is not claimed that all the papers are physical science papers, only that they are all peer-reviewed. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC reports, peer-reviewed papers from social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. These papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections (e.g. Socio-Economic) separate from the physical science sections on the list. Regardless, there are over 1000 physical science papers on the list.

Get back to your reading... and this time make sure you look at all the words.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44495 Mar 18, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe they didn't get the memo.... a little "hide" hear, a "trick" there... mix in some homogenization.... and TADA!
It's proven!!!
Proven what, denier?

Whining suits you!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44496 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, where is the solid science that supports your tenuous tedium.
Ahhh... nothing like the cart before the horse, huh?

It's the warmists that have presented the "theory". As such, they gotta answer to all comers.

Not my rules... just the way it is (or used to be).
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#44497 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>exactly who's rights are being trampled on, son?
funny.....you people can never disprove any facts given to you....no matter how much misinformation you all produce.
You, pops, can't handle the truth.. starting with the greenhouse gas effect!

Back to elementary school..
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44498 Mar 18, 2014
Coal is King wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming Hoax money sink is about to get stopped:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03...
Oh my goodness! A crisis within a crisis!

But funding should be no big deal... just snip out a few resort conferences, take commercial airlines, drop some SUV convoys... you know little budget tightening.

Tada! You've got scads of money!

And don't forget your curly-cue light bulbs and to inflate your tires!

btw... anyone know why it takes $1 million a year to keep this running? Seen a cost breakdown anywhere?
1 post removed
litesong

Everett, WA

#44500 Mar 18, 2014
coal is kinky wrote:
Looks like at least one Global Warming.....
Coal advocates want to cover up evidence of their rape of the atmosphere, seas, & Earth.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44501 Mar 18, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
For what it is worth the denier message is falling rather flat. It seems that our local deniers are a pitiful minority.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observati...
"...according to an assessment of 21 surveys ..."

A survey of surveys? Yeah... there's some hard hitting stuff there. This guy's gotta be a warmists... who else could support cherry picking data in such a unique fashion, and then present it as a "fact"?

>>The majority of Americans continue to believe that the effects of global warming are happening or will begin to happen during their lifetimes. At the same time, many fewer, currently 36%, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to their way of life during their lifetimes.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/not-global-...

First... note the distinction... "are happening" or "will happen during their lifetimes"... nothing like a broad brush to cover a big area.

But... is it a big deal?... nope. Check the graph. Never has a majority seen it as a "serious" threat.

d'Oh!
Franklin

Corona Del Mar, CA

#44502 Mar 18, 2014
True or false?

Several solar energy experts said they have not calculated the industry’s total waste and were surprised at what the records showed.

Solyndra, the now-defunct solar company that received $535 million in guaranteed federal loans, reported producing about 12.5 million pounds of hazardous waste, much of it carcinogenic cadmium-contaminated water, which was sent to waste facilities from 2007 through mid-2011.

Before the company went bankrupt, leading to increased scrutiny of the solar industry and political fallout for President Barack Obama’s administration, Solyndra SAID it created 100 megawatts-worth of solar panels, enough to power 100,000 homes.

The records also show several other Silicon Valley solar facilities created millions of pounds of toxic waste without selling a single solar panel, while they were developing their technology or fine-tuning their production.
1 post removed
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#44504 Mar 18, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Proven what, denier?
Whining suits you!
Still in a snit?

Have some Ovaltine, and have a little nappy-poo..
litesong

Everett, WA

#44505 Mar 18, 2014
motheaten wrote:
funding should be no big deal... just snip out....
......evidence of coal advocates' rape of the atmosphere, seas, oceans & Earth. re-pubic-lick-uns would fund such...... with snips.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44506 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>apparently you don't understand the greenhouse effect.
even after i explained it to you.
so....shut up, you mental midget.
BAHAHAHA you can't handle the truth, LIAR.

Go back to my previous posts for hard cramming before you post again..
litesong

Everett, WA

#44507 Mar 18, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"] who's rights are being trampled on......[/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" has no eyes to see:
https://www.google.com/search...
SpaceBlues

United States

#44508 Mar 18, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Coal advocates want to cover up evidence of their rape of the atmosphere, seas, & Earth.
Ditto.

Furthermore endanger and harm the living without records..
litesong

Everett, WA

#44509 Mar 18, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ", "middleofthedownwronggull y"]since some of you claim to understand the greenhouse effect so well.....what is your plan for water vapor?[/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" proves it has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" has been told the following very often.
Quantities of atmospheric phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor AND its primary & secondary feedbacks, are controlled by quantities of atmospheric non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their primary & secondary feedbacks. Reduction of quantities of atmospheric phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor & its primary & secondary feedbacks, will occur with reduction of quantities of atmospheric non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs & their primary & secondary feedbacks.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44510 Mar 18, 2014
The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#44511 Mar 18, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>look at a historical chart, son.
Buffoon, looking at a chart tells you what happened, but not how and why.

I know that level of research is beyond you.
9 posts removed
SpaceBlues

Hockley, TX

#44521 Mar 18, 2014
Humble pie? Pi?

More cheese? BWAHAHA
1 post removed
litesong

Everett, WA

#44523 Mar 18, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"]i guess the science is nowhere close to settled![/QUOTE]

"ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" guesses that the AGW non-science it ingests, is causing its bellyache & unsettling its constitution. But the guesses of "ratdownthemiddle", "middleofthedownwronggull y" will not make up for its lack of science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

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 A spurned Christie commands the spotlight 1 min Synque 129
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min My New Alias RULES 1,403,370
News Ohio's Kasich urges working together at NAACP c... 1 min WeTheSheeple 132
News Could NATO be the next alliance to unravel? 5 min WeTheSheeple 44
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min One way or another 201,148
News a Very conservativea platform, Pence VP pick me... 9 min Synque 21
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Frankendrumpf 232,860
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 18 min Coffee Party 391,107
News Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 1 hr Responsibility 156
News Hillary Clinton picks Tim Kaine as vice preside... 1 hr spud 192
More from around the web