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

Full story: Newsday 51,483
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38049 Aug 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
evidence
Here's some thoughts. Let's see if we can find more!
The Deregulation Playbook
Once these anti-regulatory ideologues and industry representatives were in place, they were free to begin to impede the regulatory process and to undermine regulations passed by Congress. The specific tactics varied & included:
Stalling. Agency personnel routinely and systematically delayed in formulating and issuing regulations mandated by law. For example, even though the Bush administration promised to act quickly to devise urgently needed rules to protect the right whale from extinction, it took the maximum time allowed by law, then refused to issue the rule, in violation of the law, for an additional 453 days.
Cutting Their Own Budgets. Remarkably, Bush appointees routinely tried to cut the budgets of their own agencies – making it more difficult for them to do their job. The budget for mine safety inspections, for instance, went from $139 million in 2001 to $118 million in 2006.
Inactivity. Administrators simply ignored emerging problems. In the area of workplace safety, despite evidence of a number of threats to Americans on the job, the Bush Occupational Safety and Health Administration largely sat on its hands during its entire tenure, issuing only one significant new regulation in eight years. Also, for years, Bush environmental officials refused to admit that global warming was a serious issue that merited immediate action.
Reducing Enforcement. Regulations are only effective if they are enforced vigorously. Bush appointees routinely worked to weaken enforcement. For example, they cut the civil penalties that polluters had to pay by half, weakening the incentives to comply with environmental protection rules. Another example was the reduction of inspectors and inspections in areas like food safety and mine safety. In 2003, the FDA conducted over 11,000 inspections a year for food safety, a figure that fell to 6,000 by 2007.
“Relaxing” Rules. Bush officials would look for opportunities to create exceptions or loopholes to rules so that various businesses could escape regulation. For example, they relaxed nationwide permit rules so coal companies, developers, and others could fill in thousands of streams, swamps, and other wetlands, without public notice or comment.
Listening Only to Industry. Many Bush appointees met routinely with business lobbyists interested in deregulation, but met only rarely or never with representatives of public interest groups. For example, Dick Cheney and other officials on the Energy Task Force met dozens of times with business leaders from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries. Only one meeting was held for environmental groups; it lasted just one hour and much of that was taken up with introductions of the participants.
Refusing to Fill Appointments. Bush often took an inordinate amount of time filling high-level management vacancies in agencies he didn’t like. This left these agencies adrift, often run by temporary appointments who tended to not be very aggressive in pursuing the mandate of these organizations.
Ignoring Expert Advice. When research produced results that the Bush administration did not like, administration officials often ignored it and refused to act on it. A particularly egregious example was the suppression of scientific research about the seriousness of global warming and the attempt to gag administration scientists who tried to speak out on this issue.
Embracing “Voluntary” Regulation. Abandoning aggressive approaches to regulatory enforcement, the Bush administration favored “voluntary” compliance schemes which often had little effect. The SEC, for instance, relied heavily on voluntary regulation of financial institutions. After the financial meltdown in 2008, the Chairman of the SEC admitted that this approach was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning … because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily."
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38050 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Denier statement: Scientists can't explain the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming.
BUT! If you explore the science literature, you find this little gem from 2007, making a prediction for the decade 2004-2014:
"Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004.“Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.
Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.”(Roger Highfield, Science Editor,“Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy,“Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)"
That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
OMG....When will you all learn to read the disclaimers.

MET office has already revised this, here is their new forecast:

The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. It now believes that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels.

Disclaimer: None of these projections really mean anything because of all the uncertainties we just don’t understand. We can't even forecast 10 years out without revising.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38051 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already gone through all of this about 2 weeks ago. You are more than welcome to go back and read my previous posts. I have linked where the money comes from, who controls the money and what is done with the money and how this system keeps Africa in perpetual poverty. If you choose not to read what I post, then don't come back and call me paranoid. I posted all the facts very straightforward.
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?

No, I really should be cutting the grass.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38052 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?
No, I really should be cutting the grass.
dont you use goats for that?
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#38053 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's some thoughts. Let's see if we can find more!...
Please don't. I can tell you're not going to answer the question, but use this as a bash-Bush session.

But all that was fixed under Obama, right?

LOL

No politics, indeed.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38054 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so arrogant as to believe that I would waste any more time on your paranoid conspiracies than I already do?
No, I really should be cutting the grass.
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:

"Where is the global governance? When do you think the US government will accede to that? Who would have to do that?
Whose wealth will be transferred? Private? Public? If wealth is transferred to Africa, will that not mean business opportunities for Western businesses there? With the wealth of natural resources already in Africa, do you not think money transfer to countries in that continent won't result in more business?"

Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#38055 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:
"Where is the global governance? When do you think the US government will accede to that? Who would have to do that?
Whose wealth will be transferred? Private? Public? If wealth is transferred to Africa, will that not mean business opportunities for Western businesses there? With the wealth of natural resources already in Africa, do you not think money transfer to countries in that continent won't result in more business?"
Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.
caveman's crowd always seem to favor sacrifice and making efforts....as long as someone else is doing the lifting.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38056 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Denier statement: Scientists can't explain the recent slowdown in atmospheric warming.
BUT! If you explore the science literature, you find this little gem from 2007, making a prediction for the decade 2004-2014:
"Britain’s Met Office projects 2014 temperature likely to be 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than 2004.“Here is the climate forecast for the next decade [2007-2014]; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014. This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office. The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.
Over the 10-year period [2007-2014] as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C [0.3 degrees Celsius] warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures.”(Roger Highfield, Science Editor,“Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014,” The Daily Telegraph, London, England, United Kingdom, August 9, 2007 reporting findings in Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy,“Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model,” Science, August 10, 2007 317: 796-799 DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540)"
That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
By the way everyone, I want to point out this little gem caveman wrote in reference to this old Met Office prediction that by 2014 the 2007 to 2014 time period will be warmer than 2004 by 0.3 C.:

"That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.

So caveman, if by the end of 2014, the 2007 to 2014 time period is not 0.3 C greater than 2004, can we say that the predictions are worthless and no one has an explanation of what exactly controls the temperatures?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38057 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhh...no. I have never said that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming, it's just there is no proof it is the main driver, like 90%, as per the IPCC.
Well you are making progress, finally. For a time deniers disputed that the globe was warming. Now they are saying that it is but man has nothing to do with it because Rush Limbaugh says you can’t believe in God and man-made global warming at the same time.

Read more: http://www.siftingsherald.com/article/2013081...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38058 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
What year was that?
1998, if not sooner.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38059 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG....When will you all learn to read the disclaimers.
MET office has already revised this, here is their new forecast:
The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. It now believes that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels.
Disclaimer: None of these projections really mean anything because of all the uncertainties we just don’t understand. We can't even forecast 10 years out without revising.
The rest of the story;
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said at the time that the past decade had been the warmest on record. Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38060 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG....When will you all learn to read the disclaimers.
MET office has already revised this, here is their new forecast:
The UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. It now believes that global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43 deg C above the 1971 -2000 average, with an error of +/- 0.15 deg C. In reality this is a forecast of no increase in global temperatures above current levels.
Disclaimer: None of these projections really mean anything because of all the uncertainties we just don’t understand. We can't even forecast 10 years out without revising.
My point, which zoomed right past you, is that the slowdown was predicted ACCURATELY seven years ago. So let's not hear any of that "no one saw it coming" crap.

Were they accurate in that prediction up to now, or not?
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38061 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you are making progress, finally. For a time deniers disputed that the globe was warming. Now they are saying that it is but man has nothing to do with it because Rush Limbaugh says you can’t believe in God and man-made global warming at the same time.
Read more: http://www.siftingsherald.com/article/2013081...
My position has always been this, you just refuse to accept that. And point out which scientists state there has been no warming and that CO2 does not have an effect on warming. Maybe instead of letting Think Progress tell you what AGW skeptics believe, you should find out for yourself. Have you started charging Rush for living rent free in your head yet?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#38062 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
My position has always been this, you just refuse to accept that. And point out which scientists state there has been no warming and that CO2 does not have an effect on warming. Maybe instead of letting Think Progress tell you what AGW skeptics believe, you should find out for yourself. Have you started charging Rush for living rent free in your head yet?
Perhaps you should show us the proof that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. To do that, you need to show exactly what else is causing it. All this hyperbola about global warming stalling is not helping your cause. If we would see a decade or two below the average, then perhaps you would have something. However, you are simply posting out of the denier playbook.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38063 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way everyone, I want to point out this little gem caveman wrote in reference to this old Met Office prediction that by 2014 the 2007 to 2014 time period will be warmer than 2004 by 0.3 C.:
"That seems to me like a hit right in the middle of the goddamed bullseye! The only data missing is the year we haven't experienced yet (2014). I guess we'll have to wait and see. But it appears that it was not only predicted, but explained as well.
So caveman, if by the end of 2014, the 2007 to 2014 time period is not 0.3 C greater than 2004, can we say that the predictions are worthless and no one has an explanation of what exactly controls the temperatures?
No, the POINT was, and the bullseye is, that the prediction of a slowing of the rate was accurately predicted and the oceans were named as a key factor. This something deniers have been cheering about the scientists missing. Well, this guy didn't miss. His prediction certainly wasn't worthless, now was it?

I don't know what the margin of error was re the 0.3 C. I know that predictions have varying degrees of accuracy and that the science is ongoing so new details are discovered all the time. But if you want to throw out the CO2 or methane contribution, you're not allowed. The science is too firm.

If the warming is greater than 0.3 C, will you promise to go away?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#38064 Aug 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap. You post this to me asking a sh*t load of questions:
"Where is the global governance? When do you think the US government will accede to that? Who would have to do that?
Whose wealth will be transferred? Private? Public? If wealth is transferred to Africa, will that not mean business opportunities for Western businesses there? With the wealth of natural resources already in Africa, do you not think money transfer to countries in that continent won't result in more business?"
Then when I tell you to go back and look, you call me arrogant. Don't freakin ask questions if you don't want answers and then call me arrogant for trying to answer your questions.
I'm not searching for your bullshit.

Got a number for that post? Give it to me so I can go quickly to your conspiracy theory and blow it out of the water.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38065 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My point, which zoomed right past you, is that the slowdown was predicted ACCURATELY seven years ago. So let's not hear any of that "no one saw it coming" crap.
Were they accurate in that prediction up to now, or not?
No,this is what the prediction said...GW will be held in check for a FEW years and it will then come ROARING back. At least half the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998. That prediction has already failed.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38066 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The rest of the story;
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said at the time that the past decade had been the warmest on record. Dr Stott warned that global warming could speed up again at any time, and insisted that the general pattern of warming was not in doubt.
Of course, because this is the only science that is absolute. The only science that can dismiss all obsevations that don't match a model and claim it doesn't make a difference, we are still on track to catastrophic GW.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38067 Aug 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should show us the proof that CO2 is not the driver of global warming. To do that, you need to show exactly what else is causing it. All this hyperbola about global warming stalling is not helping your cause. If we would see a decade or two below the average, then perhaps you would have something. However, you are simply posting out of the denier playbook.
Oh so now in order to disprove AGW, you have to show an EXACT cause whereas to prove AGW it can just be plausible, even if all models fail to live up to obsevations. So far the skeptics who have said we are warming and that CO2 does contribute, but more like 15% are more accurate than the models. These scientists have said the warming would not be as catastrophic as the claims from the IPCC. So their argument is more plausible than the AGW hypothesis.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#38068 Aug 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not searching for your bullshit.
Got a number for that post? Give it to me so I can go quickly to your conspiracy theory and blow it out of the water.
I wrote a few posts on the IMF, World Bank, UN and the Adaptation Fund.

37567
37590
37651

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min The Friendly Poster 312,834
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Signed up Tinka 1,191,012
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 min wojar 184,939
White House hopeful Walker: Union battles prepa... 9 min barefoot2626 74
Chicago's black voters key as Garcia battles to... 19 min Ken Tucky 7
Obama: 'Now is the moment' for police to make c... 25 min Butters 13
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 28 min spocko 584
More from around the web