Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60109 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.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#36194 Jun 1, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which studies?
Citations, please.
and you call me un-scientific and stupid???

have you ever read a newspaper, son?

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#36195 Jun 2, 2013
Deny this you fear mongers!

Science DOES NOT say and in 28 years has never said climate change IS or WILL be a crisis only could be and they won't say their "possible" crisis is as inevitable as they love to say comet hits are. But unstoppable warming IS a comet hit!
Science ONLY agrees:
"Climate change is real and is happening and "could" cause, might cause, possibly cause......unstoppable warming. Not one IPCC warning isn't swimming in "maybes" and "could bes". Help my house could be on fire maybe?
You can't have a little unstoppable warming crisis outside of Harry Potter movies.
Climate Blame = Reefer Madness
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36196 Jun 2, 2013
ListenUpPeeps wrote:
Do you guys not read the Holy Bible? If
so, you know that 'global warming' is just
God - trying to get us human beings'
attention.
It doesn't matter if it's got a title or
not - it is from God's Hand.
My two cents of advice says we best start
listening - and repenting.
:)
I pented a long time ago and it was a bitch. No way I'm gonna repent now.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36197 Jun 2, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>and you call me un-scientific and stupid???
have you ever read a newspaper, son?
I don't remember if I called you un-scientific and stupid, but that'll work.

Science papers and newspapers are two different things, illegitimate child. I've read both and the science says greenhouse gases.

Where are the studies backing natural cycles and water vapor as causes for the heating of the past century and a half?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36198 Jun 2, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Deny this you fear mongers!
Science DOES NOT say and in 28 years has never said climate change IS or WILL be a crisis only could be and they won't say their "possible" crisis is as inevitable as they love to say comet hits are. But unstoppable warming IS a comet hit!
Science ONLY agrees:
"Climate change is real and is happening and "could" cause, might cause, possibly cause......unstoppable warming. Not one IPCC warning isn't swimming in "maybes" and "could bes". Help my house could be on fire maybe?
You can't have a little unstoppable warming crisis outside of Harry Potter movies.
Climate Blame = Reefer Madness
Your house could be on fire. Do you have insurance?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#36199 Jun 2, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>many things cause climate change. eradicating co2 will not cure the planet, when it hasn't been shown as the cause for climate change. temperature increases precede co2 increases. game over.
Neither will eradicating tobacco cure all cancers. CO2 is not "THE" cause of climate change. It is only one of the causes. Unfortunately, excess CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels and is a known greenhouse gas.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36200 Jun 2, 2013
ListenUpPeeps wrote:
.
.
You guys are falling into what they call a
"diversion". i.e. If they can keep us discussing
and fussing about things - such as "global warming",
that is that much less time we will prepare for
Jesus' second coming.
.
And posting all of these lemons, lightbulbs and big red X's - while cute - isn't changing any of prophecy - of what's coming.
“Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.”

&#8213; Isaac Asimov
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36201 Jun 2, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>many things cause climate change. eradicating co2 will not cure the planet, when it hasn't been shown as the cause for climate change. temperature increases precede co2 increases. game over.
CO2 has preceded warming before.

http://www.google.com/url...

Most previous warming episodes have been due to other forcings, resulting in the release of CO2 because of the warming. Since humans are the main forcing now, you can expect to see more greenhouse gases released naturally because of us. Yes, many things cause climate change; now add humans to the list.

It's funny that the only way that you know that the Earth has warmed in the past is through the work of the very scientists who you say now have it all wrong. IOW, you're believing what you want to believe and rejecting what you don't like.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36202 Jun 2, 2013
SpaceBlues

United States

#36203 Jun 2, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
The abstract of the study in news:

[1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect – the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels – is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.
SpaceBlues

United States

#36204 Jun 2, 2013
Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

“Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”

The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.

But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so.“If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.

To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.

In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions.“Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said.“Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”

“The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue.“Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36205 Jun 2, 2013
Renewables have seen such dramatic price falls in the past few years that they are threatening to upset the world as we know it and usher in an almost unprecedented boom in the spread of cheap, clean, home-produced energy.

Solar will be the cheapest form of power in many countries within just a few years. In places such as California and Italy it has already reached so-called "grid parity". Onshore wind, on a piece of land not constrained by years of planning delays, is already the cheapest form of energy on earth. These are not wild claims – those are figures from General Electric, Citibank and others.

The Guardian, 6/1/13
Coal is King

Paducah, KY

#36206 Jun 2, 2013
Solar and wind power does not work, has never worked, and will never work.
FBI

Seattle, WA

#36207 Jun 2, 2013
You are all going to boil.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36208 Jun 2, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Solar and wind power does not work, has never worked, and will never work.
OH it works alright, it's just not cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment. Once fossil fuels are taxed out of existence or become valueless then all those alternatives will work a whole lot better!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36209 Jun 2, 2013
Move along folks, nothing to see here. This is the deniers catch cry as Europe gets to enjoy its annual "average" rain fall.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-227468...

Last years Floods

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ja...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#36210 Jun 2, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
OH it works alright, it's just not cheaper than fossil fuels at the moment.
Actually, solar is cheaper than 'grid power' in about 10% of the country, mostly areas that are on fossil fuels instead of hydro power.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cf...

And Wind power is competitive in MOST of the country.

http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables-becoming...

Note: MOST 'new capacity' installed in the USA is Wind Power. Despite the economy draining subsidies on fossil fuels.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36211 Jun 2, 2013
Coal is King wrote:
Solar and wind power does not work, has never worked, and will never work.
Solar and wind have always worked, are doing really good now, and are the main power source of the future.

Too bad you're going to be left behind. And too bad you didn't do very well in history and science. Let's review.

Wind powered merchant ships and warships for centuries, since before the Egyptians to the present day.

Windmills have been used for centuries also, from Holland to Kansas.

Wind is actually a product of solar energy and so, in the final analysis, everything on Earth is powered by the Sun, with the exception of nuclear.

The gas you put in your car is stored solar energy. The coal your power plant uses is stored solar energy. The plants that feed and clothe you are solar-powered and, get this, have been for millions of years.

The simple task before us is to harness solar as efficiently as the plants do, and we get closer to that goal every year. My comment previously, which I think you were attempting to discount, is only one small example of the wave of change that is coming. It's getting bigger and better all the time.

Now, what was it you were saying about solar and wind?
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#36212 Jun 2, 2013
"The turtle shell is considered an evolutionary novelty, which means that there are no closely analogous structures in related animals.

"That leads to the notion that such things cannot occur through normal evolutionary processes. But, when you examine it in detail, you can see the series of steps, each of them explainable through small changes that gradually add up to the novel structure."

For the people here who understand analogy....
Coal is King

Crofton, KY

#36214 Jun 3, 2013
I repeat: Solar and wind power does not work, never worked, and will never work.

I know history. Real history, not the garbage that is in the books that they use in schools today that are written by socialist eggheads who were tree hugging hippies when they were in college in the 1960s.

Sure ships used to have sails. It was better than rowing but it was not a reliable source of power. Ever hear the nautical term "becalmed". If your ship was becalmed it meant that you were stranded in the middle of the ocean until the wind picked up again. To avoid it ships had to sail thousands of miles out of their way to stay in the "trade winds". They couldn't go in a straight line between two points. Coal burning steam engines made that possible.

Solar electric? Hype, that's all. Just look at the solar airplane that's on its way from Dallas to Chicago right now. The thing is as wide as a 747, carries only one person, and cruises at 40 mph. A good old coal burning steam locomotive could go nearly twice that speed and haul a train with 500 or more people.

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Incognito4Ever 1,395,626
last post wins! (Dec '10) 12 min They cannot kill ... 2,145
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 22 min Dr Guru 216,845
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 36 min CrunchyBacon 102,496
last post wins! (Apr '13) 58 min Hatti_Hollerand 1,118
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 8,898
Chicago has the Worst Women 4 hr Amazing but True 13
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages