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

Full story: Newsday 47,006
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
COAL IS KING

Murray, KY

#35327 Apr 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of problems....warming changes weather patterns, which may leave previously fertile areas colder or in drought status while opening up other areas which weren't open to agriculture. This could be an even trade, but will disrupt societies and politics.
Second, and much more significant, it WILL leave world sea levels higher, possibly MUCH higher depending on how warm it gets. Several feet would flood all low-lying coastal areas leading, again, to massive social and political disruptions.
And there's the distant possibility that RUNAWAY warming could make the Earth uninhabitable, the 'Venus effect.'
Not sure this is something we want to gamble with...
Granted there will be tradeoffs, but overall I think the U.S., Europe, and Russia will benefit.

I don't care about the "massive social and political disruptions" in the cesspools of the world. They do a good enough job of that as it is. Climate change won't change that fact much if any, it will just give them an excuse to blame us with the inherent inferiority of their social systems.

Flooding will not be that big a problem for us. Sure, the beaches might go under, but even if all the ice melted (not likely) we wouldn't have "Water World" because there's not enough water locked up in ice to do that. There's only enough to raise sea levels about 200 feet or so. Realistic projections are only saying climate change could raise sea levels 20 feet.

A "Venus effect" is something out of science fiction.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#35328 Apr 24, 2013
COAL IS KING wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted there will be tradeoffs, but overall I think the U.S., Europe, and Russia will benefit.
I don't care about the "massive social and political disruptions" in the cesspools of the world. They do a good enough job of that as it is. Climate change won't change that fact much if any, it will just give them an excuse to blame us with the inherent inferiority of their social systems.
Flooding will not be that big a problem for us. Sure, the beaches might go under, but even if all the ice melted (not likely) we wouldn't have "Water World" because there's not enough water locked up in ice to do that. There's only enough to raise sea levels about 200 feet or so. Realistic projections are only saying climate change could raise sea levels 20 feet.
A "Venus effect" is something out of science fiction.
You "think" we will benefit - and we're supposed to take your word over the word of the bulk of the world's scientists? Sorry, pal, that's not good enough for me.

Furthermore, a 20-foot sea rise would CATASTROPHICALLY affect the world, its people, and its politics. But given that you write off the third world, I guess you don't care, huh?

The Venus effect is no such thing; scientists are quite certain that runaway greenhouse effect caused Venus to be the inhospitable world it is today. It's at least a POSSIBILITY, and not one any sane person would accept.

I find it harder and harder to take your comments seriously.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#35329 Apr 24, 2013
COAL IS KING wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted there will be tradeoffs, but overall I think the U.S., Europe, and Russia will benefit.
I don't care about the "massive social and political disruptions" in the cesspools of the world. They do a good enough job of that as it is. Climate change won't change that fact much if any, it will just give them an excuse to blame us with the inherent inferiority of their social systems.
Flooding will not be that big a problem for us. Sure, the beaches might go under, but even if all the ice melted (not likely) we wouldn't have "Water World" because there's not enough water locked up in ice to do that. There's only enough to raise sea levels about 200 feet or so. Realistic projections are only saying climate change could raise sea levels 20 feet.
A "Venus effect" is something out of science fiction.
We have had hundreds of years to adapt to climate conditions and our agricultural system is attuned to it. We understand how things work. Are we willing to gamble that an abrupt change in climate will not disrupt this balance. With increasingly violent storms, hail, heavy rains and winds in some areas and droughts in others will agriculture be able to maintain the ever more productive future that it has for many years to feed the world? Tributary flooding, coastal inundation along with more severe hurricanes will stress the ability of society to contend with the distruction and massive migration that will surely occurr. Are we willing to gamble that this will not happen? I am not understanding how this will be a good thing.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#35330 Apr 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We have had hundreds of years to adapt to climate conditions and our agricultural system is attuned to it. We understand how things work. Are we willing to gamble that an abrupt change in climate will not disrupt this balance. With increasingly violent storms, hail, heavy rains and winds in some areas and droughts in others will agriculture be able to maintain the ever more productive future that it has for many years to feed the world? Tributary flooding, coastal inundation along with more severe hurricanes will stress the ability of society to contend with the distruction and massive migration that will surely occurr. Are we willing to gamble that this will not happen? I am not understanding how this will be a good thing.
My god, I agreed with that. Are you feeling OK?:)
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35331 Apr 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We have had hundreds of years to adapt to climate conditions and our agricultural system is attuned to it. We understand how things work. Are we willing to gamble that an abrupt change in climate will not disrupt this balance. With increasingly violent storms, hail, heavy rains and winds in some areas and droughts in others will agriculture be able to maintain the ever more productive future that it has for many years to feed the world? Tributary flooding, coastal inundation along with more severe hurricanes will stress the ability of society to contend with the distruction and massive migration that will surely occurr. Are we willing to gamble that this will not happen? I am not understanding how this will be a good thing.
Experiments suggest that CO2 does not play a factor in such extreme weather events.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1... (2002)015%3C2395:CICIIT%3E2.0. CO%3B2

"The coefficient of variation of precipitation (i.e., the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean) also tends to increase in most areas, especially where the mean precipitation decreases. However, the changes in variability are less similar between the 19 experiments than the changes in mean temperature and precipitation, at least partly because they have a much lower signal-to-noise ratio."
"
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35332 Apr 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
This is whiny boy's idea of an "answer," notice.
"Burning ALL coal..."
..nowhere did I specify any type of coal, just that burning coal has been linked to acid rain. I know of no type of coal that, burned without scrubbing technology, does NOT put S02 in the atmosphere and thereby cause acid rain, either, which appears to make Brain a LIAR.
"C02 isn't acid rain..."
No one said it was, of course, but Brian. Naturally he's trying to conflate the two in order to excuse his gross error. But burning coal...ALL kinds of coal....does indeed put more C02 into the atmosphere than any other kind of fuel.
Why would anyone do anything but laugh at Brian's silly posturing and trolling?:)
Check out the train wreck that is the Kemper County Lignite plant, north of my hometown.

Unproven technology, complicit politicians, cost overruns, rate increases, pollution, emissions, strip mining, and relocation of residents.

It will personally impact me, and thousands of other south Mississippi residents, as my power bill is expected to rise between, no one can say for sure, 16% and 61%! We start getting charged for the electricity before it is even produced! Manufacturers, casinos, and big commercial establishments are EXEMPT! from any rate increases approved by the Public Service Commission!

My neighbor and my sister-in-law's boyfriend both work there and have told me stories of sloppy workmanship and coasting labor. Rework, rework, rework. Sixteen inch pipe out of alignment by 3 inches, having to be torn out and redone. Waste and more waste. People will likely go to jail after it's all over with.

Lyin brian is like our Republican state legislators, sees nothing wrong with all this, it's the cost of doing business and progress and all...doing business on the backs of people that can't afford it; progress toward emitting more GHG's.

mississippi.sierraclub.org/issues/kempercount...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35333 Apr 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
The Venus effect is no such thing; It's at least a POSSIBILITY, and not one any sane person would accept.
Yeah, considering Venus has roughly 220,000 times the CO2 in its atmosphere as the Earth does, & the world's industry is working hard for hundreds of years to increase Earth atmosphere's CO2 by 2.......
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35334 Apr 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of problems....warming changes weather patterns, which may leave previously fertile areas colder or in drought status while opening up other areas which weren't open to agriculture. This could be an even trade, but will disrupt societies and politics.
Second, and much more significant, it WILL leave world sea levels higher, possibly MUCH higher depending on how warm it gets. Several feet would flood all low-lying coastal areas leading, again, to massive social and political disruptions.
And there's the distant possibility that RUNAWAY warming could make the Earth uninhabitable, the 'Venus effect.'
Not sure this is something we want to gamble with...
Another thing has been learned the hard way in the Amazon Valley. I think there might be a similar problem in northern forests.

You can't just clear cut jungle and convert it to pasture or farm fields overnight. IT'S JUNGLE SOIL! It has been a part of a single ecosystem for millennia. To convert it would require converting the existing soil into another kind of soil, as well as adding megatons of fertilizer.

"Adapting deniers" are simpletons who think any part of the world can bend to human will with no problems.

The environment is unbelievably complicated, and not nearly as simple as an unmitigated idiot mistakenly thinks it is.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35335 Apr 24, 2013
COAL IS KING wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted there will be tradeoffs, but overall I think the U.S., Europe, and Russia will benefit.
I don't care about the "massive social and political disruptions" in the cesspools of the world. They do a good enough job of that as it is. Climate change won't change that fact much if any, it will just give them an excuse to blame us with the inherent inferiority of their social systems.
Flooding will not be that big a problem for us. Sure, the beaches might go under, but even if all the ice melted (not likely) we wouldn't have "Water World" because there's not enough water locked up in ice to do that. There's only enough to raise sea levels about 200 feet or so. Realistic projections are only saying climate change could raise sea levels 20 feet.
A "Venus effect" is something out of science fiction.
Unbelievable!

A one foot sea level rise will be catastrophic for many cities AND farming populations around the world.

You need to do some more studying to keep from sounding like an unmitigated fool like lyin brian.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35336 Apr 24, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>And they were wrong.
I responded to your wording with "benefits."

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35337 Apr 24, 2013
COAL IS KING wrote:
I don't deny that more CO2 in the atomosphere will cause the earth's climate to get warmer. That is basic science. I don't deny that burning coal is increasing the amount of CO2. That is common sense. I do question the idea that global warming is bad. It only stands to reason that a warmer world will be able to grow more food because all that frozen land in the far north will become fertile farmland.
And what happens to the farms and farmers on the fertile land belt right now when their farms are either under water in floods, become dry desert sand or crops buried in snow. Do they all move to Alaska ?

When does it sink into your deniers head that its not about the planet becoming warm its about the weather that comes with it!!
Patterns of weather that can no longer be relied on because of constant changing ocean temps. This means every country's food bowls being disrupted with extreme weather on a regular basis. They can't all freaking move NORTH!
litesong

Seattle, WA

#35338 Apr 24, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
I think there might be a similar problem in northern forests.
You can't just clear cut jungle and convert it to pasture or farm fields...... To convert it would require .......adding megatons of fertilizer.
I love Gifford Pinchot, who kept the timber barons from turning the U.S. into a treeless, forest-cut, wasteland & desert. Not a radical, save all trees at any cost, he desired that the generations ahead would still be able to use forests for 'practical' industry.

Altho he beat back the industries of timber, establishing forest practices that would last for centuries, one factor he never addressed & no one else today addresses, is that forestlands, specially mountain forests, 5 & 6 times cut, will produce terrible types of wood. Like a farmer's continuing harvests need great quantities of sustaining fertilizers, forests will need vast inputs of nutrients, too....... more than the 'starter' fertilizer quantities used today, more than the wood 'waste' materials left after the tree trunks are cut & taken to the saw mills.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#35339 Apr 24, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Experiments suggest that CO2 does not play a factor in such extreme weather events.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1... (2002)015%3C2395:CICIIT%3E2.0. CO%3B2
"The coefficient of variation of precipitation (i.e., the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean) also tends to increase in most areas, especially where the mean precipitation decreases. However, the changes in variability are less similar between the 19 experiments than the changes in mean temperature and precipitation, at least partly because they have a much lower signal-to-noise ratio."
"
The link does not work but if it indeed says that CO2 does not cause more severe or frequent storms, it is in variance with many other studies.

NASA GISS
NASA asserts that “the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming”.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project verified this.

"Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/34...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35340 Apr 24, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The link does not work but if it indeed says that CO2 does not cause more severe or frequent storms, it is in variance with many other studies.
NASA GISS
NASA asserts that “the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming”.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project verified this.
"Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/34...
This is where they need to compare apples with apples. CO2 in itself will not create weather. But they keep going on about C02 not being a pollutant etc etc instead of it being the trigger for other events. Such as global warming and changing ocean temps and currents which is the seed for all weather.
One doesn't have to look too far out into the universe to find planets with the wrong mix in atmosphere to see 100 yr old storms and the like. Common sense would tell you when you upset natures balance to support life then the obvious scenario follows.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#35341 Apr 25, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
... one factor he never addressed & no one else today addresses ...
Horsecrap.

Your points are perfectly valid, but you are wrong to say "no one addresses" them.

http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/Sustainability

Just one easily Googled example.

You need to get out of your ideological bubble more ...
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35342 Apr 25, 2013
"Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..."

Once sped up threat, global warming slows down, leaving lit...

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#35343 Apr 25, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Experiments suggest that CO2 does not play a factor in such extreme weather events.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1... (2002)015%3C2395:CICIIT%3E2.0. CO%3B2
"The coefficient of variation of precipitation (i.e., the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean) also tends to increase in most areas, especially where the mean precipitation decreases. However, the changes in variability are less similar between the 19 experiments than the changes in mean temperature and precipitation, at least partly because they have a much lower signal-to-noise ratio."
"
C02 defintely plays a role in warming, and warming in climate change and weather patterns. So I think we have to reject your claims there.

Bad link, too.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#35344 Apr 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Another thing has been learned the hard way in the Amazon Valley. I think there might be a similar problem in northern forests.
You can't just clear cut jungle and convert it to pasture or farm fields overnight. IT'S JUNGLE SOIL! It has been a part of a single ecosystem for millennia. To convert it would require converting the existing soil into another kind of soil, as well as adding megatons of fertilizer.
"Adapting deniers" are simpletons who think any part of the world can bend to human will with no problems.
The environment is unbelievably complicated, and not nearly as simple as an unmitigated idiot mistakenly thinks it is.
Indeed, many think that because jungles are lush that jungle soil is rich. It isn't, in fact it's often rather poor. It's mostly the massive rainfall that helps create the growth.

Those who burn off jungle to farm the land rely on the ashes of the burnoff to help fertilize, and that usually only works for a couple of growing seasons. Then they have to move on and burn off MORE jungle, which perpetuates a vicious cycle.

Good post!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35345 Apr 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>To koolaid guy:
C02[sic] defintely plays a role in warming, and warming in climate change and weather patterns. So I think we have to reject your claims there.
Bad link, too.
True.

Carbon dioxide [CO2] is the greenhouse gas that is responsible for 63% of the warming attributable to all greenhouse gases, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab.

http://www.jconline.com/usatoday/article/2110...
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35346 Apr 25, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...are simpletons who think any part of the world can bend to human will with no problems.
The environment is unbelievably complicated, and not nearly as simple as an unmitigated idiot mistakenly thinks it is.
Good point!
So what is a person who simply believes that removing 12%(48 molecules from 1 million molecules of air) of the trace gas, CO2 , will dramatically change the future of all life on Earth?

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min D-U-H 50,040
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr RoxLo 1,115,129
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 69,495
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Mandela 68,560
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr loose cannon 178,586
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr RACE 98,345
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr RACE 639

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 ]