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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
31,781 - 31,800 of 45,913 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33614
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is going on today. One of the differences is that the Earth does not have almost totally anaerobic organisms as it did in the formative years. One of the differences is that those organisms did not have the reserves of organic carbon to burn like man is doing. We are changing the dynamics of the atmosphere.
There is little doubt that the Earth will continue to flourish until the Sun cycles out. However, mankind is more interested in his own species survival as a species.
Of course no facts are used to back up the claims. Some of the newest coal in not more than a million years old. In case you missed it coal is formed from plant life that died and formed a soggy mass called peat which was then covered by other materials and compressed. Which means that the process is still continuing with todays swamps and bog becoming coal in about a million years.

While by your definition there was little aerobic life on the land the seas were alive with such and some of the first amphbians were crawling out of those seas to spend part of their time on land.

If man is truely interested in surviving then it must use that most important tool of all, the mind to reason rather than react in an emotional manner similar to a herd animal. Because the earth has always been in a state of change and refusing to change with it is a sure way to extiction. To insist that it must not change so we do not have to continue to evolve is an even surer road to extiction.

http://www.ket.org/trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_ea...

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33615
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course no facts are used to back up the claims. Some of the newest coal in not more than a million years old. In case you missed it coal is formed from plant life that died and formed a soggy mass called peat which was then covered by other materials and compressed. Which means that the process is still continuing with todays swamps and bog becoming coal in about a million years.
While by your definition there was little aerobic life on the land the seas were alive with such and some of the first amphbians were crawling out of those seas to spend part of their time on land.
If man is truely interested in surviving then it must use that most important tool of all, the mind to reason rather than react in an emotional manner similar to a herd animal. Because the earth has always been in a state of change and refusing to change with it is a sure way to extiction. To insist that it must not change so we do not have to continue to evolve is an even surer road to extiction.
http://www.ket.org/trips/coal/agsmm/agsmmhow....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/history_of_the_ea...
Yes indeed!

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33616
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
The population bomb may be defusing, but our cooking of the climate has barely begun. Don't take it from me, however. Instead, peruse this major new US government report:
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/
The population bomb was never really armed. Someone just took Mathus numbers and used them to sell a book by claiming something that isn't so.

As for the government report. I never seen a burocrat that could not produce a report about anything given enough time. More so when it could lead to more funding or at least reduce the chance of funding being cut. With the last budget crisis and the latest with the GOP demanding that budget cuts need to be made in order to get their vote to increase the debt limit I am not surprised at this report. After all, nothing helps convince a Congressman or Senator more than being able to have something physical to show them how much you are doing with the few dollars you have. With thirteen agencies involved I have no doubt that they are anouncing the end of the world. Funny thing is many of those were claiming the same thing only by ice instead of fire four decades ago and will again four decades from now.

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulati...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia...
cub

Cleveland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33617
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

huh

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33618
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it is not my word, but that of scientists who have studied and measured as carefully as possible. We may not know exactly how much radiation would kill you but we do know that if the level exceeds a certain amount that your life is going to be compromised.
Science is never exact. It is simply what we perceive from observations and logic. However, we must live in the universe as we do perceive it. For example, we expect a mass to remain at rest or move at a uniform velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.
We also expect the ocean to continue to become more acidic as we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We also expect the Earth to warm as the CO2 increases. To do otherwise would be in direct opposition of our understandings of universal perceptions. To not accept this would be to disregard all human understandings of our existence and a total disregard for science and Western philosophy. If that were to be so, what would be its replacement?
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped.

Often, what is preceived is discovered to be wrong. At one time it was preceived that the universe rotated around the earth and that the earth was flat. Later it was discovered that what was preceived was wrong. That the earth was a sphere and that it was only a fragment of the universe. The interesting thing is how those early learned men clinged to this idea dispite the proof that they were wrong the way you cling to the idea that man is the cause of climate change. In both cases, the need to believe that man was important to the scheme of things is central. The need to see man in complete control and master of the universe. To see man as the center of existance.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33619
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped.
Often, what is preceived is discovered to be wrong. At one time it was preceived that the universe rotated around the earth and that the earth was flat. Later it was discovered that what was preceived was wrong. That the earth was a sphere and that it was only a fragment of the universe. The interesting thing is how those early learned men clinged to this idea dispite the proof that they were wrong the way you cling to the idea that man is the cause of climate change. In both cases, the need to believe that man was important to the scheme of things is central. The need to see man in complete control and master of the universe. To see man as the center of existance.
Right on!!!
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33620
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33621
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped....
And of course the warming from the additional CO2 causes more permafrost to be melted thus heating the atmosphere more and more.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33622
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

large lying language wrote:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.

In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.

"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////

Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33623
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
You made me laugh a bit! Do you have any points, except just make stuff up? The way to tackle global warming is to adapt the earth, the enviroment to the condition of the heat, not prevent electricity, how vain.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33625
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

'large lying language' lying:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
litesong continues:
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
//////////
'large lying language' lying:
Do you ........just make stuff up?
//////////
litesong wrote:
Caught in its lie,'large lying language' lies in larger leaps, livening its V-8.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33626
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

pinheadlitesout wrote:
'large lying language' lying:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
//////////
pinheadlitesout wrote:
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
pinheadlitesout continues:
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
//////////
'large lying language' lying:
Do you ........just make stuff up?
//////////
pinheadlitesout wrote:
Caught in its lie,'large lying language' lies in larger leaps, livening its V-8.
WOW your getting spanked from around the world now. You should get that check upo from the neck up you really really need.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33627
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>WOW your getting spanked from around the world now. You should get that check upo from the neck up you really really need.
All you do is repeat the same schlock/personal insults.
Revealing, no?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33628
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You made me laugh a bit! Do you have any points, except just make stuff up? The way to tackle global warming is to adapt the earth, the enviroment to the condition of the heat, not prevent electricity, how vain.
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.

Here you go

The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.

However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:

<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett

Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto

Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.

In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.

The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.

"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."

The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.

The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...

If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33629
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seems simple enough. I'm buying up beachfront property on Baffin Island myself.

Oughtta be a goldmine ...
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33630
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is repeat the same schlock/personal insults.
Revealing, no?
It would only be an insult if the insult fits your personality and it does. See I do respond in kind.
worse than we thought

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33631
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.
Here you go
The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.
However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:
<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett
Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto
Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.
The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.
"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."
The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...
If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
geoengineering by humans 'wallop', has been going on since the 1940's. many patents have been applied for and issued for the various ways humans have been tampering with nature. these and more are explained in this documentary below about the ongoing practice of contrails and the results of this geoengineering practice done on a massive scale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

here is an article, with some excellent pictures of blowing clouds of iron oxide dust, of how nature does it. there is a big difference between these pictures and some billionare illegaly dumping iron dust into the ocean off the shore of british columbia thinking he is saving the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/th...
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33632
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

worse than we thought wrote:
<quoted text> geoengineering by humans 'wallop', has been going on since the 1940's. many patents have been applied for and issued for the various ways humans have been tampering with nature. these and more are explained in this documentary below about the ongoing practice of contrails and the results of this geoengineering practice done on a massive scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
here is an article, with some excellent pictures of blowing clouds of iron oxide dust, of how nature does it. there is a big difference between these pictures and some billionare illegaly dumping iron dust into the ocean off the shore of british columbia thinking he is saving the world.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/th...
yYou walloped the wallop again. Good Job!!!
Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel

Oswego, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33633
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Coal, its whats cooking dinner!
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33634
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.
Here you go
The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.
However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:
<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett
Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto
Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.
The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.
"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."
The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...
If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
The scientists. Always right aren't they. Why not send them up into the ozone, how would you know it would be too cool?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

44 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Music Artists A to Z 6 min _Zoey_ 265
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min EasyEed 1,085,001
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 28 min RACE 487
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 32 min JOEL COOL DUDE 68,466
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 34 min TRD 68,124
'African' stowaway's body found on US military ... 1 hr BAN UR sorry fooking azz 3
Take a short 33 question test on gummint/history. 1 hr I got over 84 percent 1
Ask Amy 8-1-14 2 hr Shari23 19
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr Jacques in Ottawa 175,260
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 hr PEllen 97,587
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••