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

Full story: Newsday 47,052
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33771 Jan 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Well than you didn't follow the money.Do you know what riches they have?I didn't think so.
Obama is taking away our money!
PHD

Overton, TX

#33772 Jan 23, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is taking away our money!
They all take away our money. They just change hats.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33773 Jan 23, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
Obama is taking away our money!
romneyhood, romnesia, & romney who(?) would have crowned himself king & had you bow down to him.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33774 Jan 23, 2013
There all the same they just change their hats.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33775 Jan 23, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
romneyhood, romnesia, & romney who(?) would have crowned himself king & had you bow down to him.
Liberal Propaganda of World War 3.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33777 Jan 23, 2013
Useless babble from the "pinheadlitesout"

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33778 Jan 23, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
It is if your using skepticalscience. I could find just as many links in junkscience.com to refute it and they are just as valid as skepticalsceince's.

Also the first actually supports what I have been telling you.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33779 Jan 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, So you don't believe that burning mega tons of fossil fuels does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. Poor thing.
You mean CO2 that was in the atmosphere back during the Cambrian. When the planet was lush with life.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33780 Jan 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You are incorrect. The optimum of the current interglacial was approximately 5000 to 9000 years ago. We have been on a COOLING trend since then, as others have also shown you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Te...
If humans hadn't started pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the 1800s, the Little Ice Age might still be with us today. We may have arrested the slow slide into another ice age, but we've overshot & have emitted WAY too much carbon into the atmosphere.
BTW, it's "...would HAVE happened..." or "...would'VE happened..." - not "...would OF..."
If you want people to believe you are right then you need better than the junk William Connonelly wrote for wikipedia.

So if all you have is wikipeidia then you in reality have no proof at all. Most teachers will not even accept wikipeida and the site even has an entry saying that you should not trust them either.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33781 Jan 23, 2013


The yellow cat(named ratchet) in the video is very cute and ought to be supported morally, and politically. I am here to spread awareness of ratchet!
PHD

Overton, TX

#33782 Jan 23, 2013
Careful they will insist the yellow cat is actually orange with their sciencetific science fiction.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33783 Jan 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
Careful they will insist the yellow cat is actually orange with their sciencetific science fiction.
Colour blind are those libs?
PHD

Overton, TX

#33784 Jan 23, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Colour blind are those libs?
Oh how true that is.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33785 Jan 23, 2013
True enough!

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33786 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean CO2 that was in the atmosphere back during the Cambrian. When the planet was lush with life.
Yep, all that CO2 that was broken down by microorganisms to release oxygen that supports life as we know it today.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33788 Jan 23, 2013
Ahh, yes as we know it today. Tomorrow there will be more scientific science fiction that will show the errors in their ways.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33789 Jan 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
Ahh, yes as we know it today. Tomorrow there will be more scientific science fiction that will show the errors in their ways.
Sir, you do not know science fiction, just science friction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#33790 Jan 23, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want people to believe you are right then you need better than the junk William Connonelly [SIC] wrote for wikipedia.
So if all you have is wikipeidia [SIC] then you in reality have no proof at all. Most teachers will not even accept wikipeida [SIC] and the site even has an entry saying that you should not trust them either.
Then you're posting in the wrong place. If you don't like what ANYone says on Wiki, then you should try to develop a TINY bit of courage, sign on there & tell them EXACTLY how they're wrong. If you have facts & logic on your side, in the small-D democratic environment of Wiki, you'll prevail. Period.

I reference Wiki because it's usually pretty accessible, plus they have lots of live links to reputable sources. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they're a LOT more accurate than the average site out there. The fact that so many people can input their own knowledge tends to push the site toward the truth.

So you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong place. Either post on Wiki & tell them exactly HOW they're wrong - or SU.

You might also show a BIT more respect by learning how to spell proper names. It's "Wikipedia" & "William Connolley."
PHD

Overton, TX

#33791 Jan 23, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sir, you do not know science fiction, just science friction.
You bet sir. Scientific science fiction is all the same.Now if you are talking about science that would be another issue. Science corrects errors to discover more errors to their corrections.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33792 Jan 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
... we simply MUST switch to non-carbon emitting energy, & switch ASAP. It's notable that nuclear power doesn't emit carbon, & it would be VASTLY preferable to burning more fossil fuel. We just need to use fast neutron "breeder" reactors, or make the switch to liquid thorium; both these have the advantage of much, MUCH less dangerous waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter time.
Right on.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text> ... Ultimately, mining the lunar mare for Helium-3, which can fuse with deuterium without releasing excess neutrons, may be much better over the longer term. The amount of energy is enormous. The lack of excess neutrons means reactor vessels last much, much longer. The Chinese will probably dominate this industry in the future; they're the ones who are foresightful enough to be returning to the moon.
Simple geometry says fusion will never be competitive with fission. Here's why -

1) All that lovely energy is useless until & unless you get it transferred into a working fluid that drives a turbine. Heat transfer is a function of surface area, which is in turn a function of the square of the cross-sectional diameter. A PWR fuel rod is less than 1/2" in diameter, while the fusion plasma in a tokamak (if they can ever keep one lit) is several inches in diameter. Thus, fission plants will always be an order of magnitude more thermally efficient than fusion plants. Simple geometry.

2) Fusion plants will have all the same radwaste issues that fission plants do - their reactor components will get just as 'hot' from induced radioactivity as in fission reactors. But fusion reactors will present an additional radwaste/environmental radioactivity release problem on top of that, for which there is no apparent solution - tritium, and lots of it. How do you contain and prevent release of a radioactive gas that diffuses right thru steel itself?

Nope - fission will always be more competitive as a baseload generation technology than fusion.

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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min RoxLo 1,115,463
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 8 min Eric 69,536
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 19 min Cali Girl 2014 50,053
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 36 min Rogue Scholar 05 178,612
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr LieutenantGov 4,053
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr door left open wa... 98,367
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr full mardi mau-Grau 68,565

Chicago Jobs

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 ]