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

There are 53570 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.

Pat

Fullerton, CA

#43149 Feb 4, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Abstract. We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% larger than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as large as that in the mid 1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of 4 greater. These speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus retreated to the bottom of an overdeepened basin with a depth of ~ 1300 m below sea level. While retreat may slow slightly as the terminus retreats farther – to a moderate rise in the bed – it is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, at which point it should rapidly retreat to the shallower regions ~ 50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.
What do you say?
So what do you propose as the first most important thing to do exactly to stop and correct this climate change scourge?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43150 Feb 4, 2014
For those of you who wish to see the now famous "polar vortex" this is what it looks like from a weather mapping super computer for Earth.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/iso...
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43151 Feb 4, 2014
The hippies must love that one psychedelic!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#43152 Feb 4, 2014
denier wrote:
The hippies must love that one psychedelic!
Yeah I am sure you deniers would have it as a bedside lamp if it was marketed. I mean anything to take away from the warming argument has got to be worth the expense.
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43153 Feb 5, 2014
What do you mean I'm still here?
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43154 Feb 5, 2014
And the hippies did market it it's called a lava lamp!
al gore

Gurnee, IL

#43155 Feb 5, 2014
Carbon credits for sale get em while there hot!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#43156 Feb 5, 2014
OzRitz wrote:
For those of you who wish to see the now famous "polar vortex" this is what it looks like from a weather mapping super computer for Earth.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/iso...
Exactly explains what I have stated for years. AGW enhanced warm fronts from the south are strongly pushing into the Arctic NP regions, outrageously warming the Arctic. Simultaneously & presently, the AGW enhanced extra energy warm fronts push cold Arctic NP air to the south onto Canada & the U.S. That is why Maine set its all time recorded low temperature in 2009 & many regions set cold weather records in Canada, U.S., Mexico & even Centra America.

While enhanced AGW warm fronts slammed cold onto the eastern U.S., air planes at 33,000 feet & above, caught powerful jet streams that accelerated their speeds to 800+mph.

Thank you for the wonderful presentation. Not only was the presentation full of science, all noted the wonderfully artistic elements of the compact, understandable & multi-faceted science.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#43157 Feb 5, 2014
denier wrote:
Are you tryin to say patriots are bozos or do they call u patriot also known as bozo?
We are all bozo's on this bus.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#43158 Feb 5, 2014
Truth Facts wrote:
<quoted text>What that Kerry is a puppet?You are a patriot bozo or should I say parrot bozo.
Still nothing.
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43159 Feb 5, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly explains what I have stated for years. AGW enhanced warm fronts from the south are strongly pushing into the Arctic NP regions, outrageously warming the Arctic. Simultaneously & presently, the AGW enhanced extra energy warm fronts push cold Arctic NP air to the south onto Canada & the U.S. That is why Maine set its all time recorded low temperature in 2009 & many regions set cold weather records in Canada, U.S., Mexico & even Centra America.
While enhanced AGW warm fronts slammed cold onto the eastern U.S., air planes at 33,000 feet & above, caught powerful jet streams that accelerated their speeds to 800+mph.
Thank you for the wonderful presentation. Not only was the presentation full of science, all noted the wonderfully artistic elements of the compact, understandable & multi-faceted science.
it's called high frequency active auroral research program there's the scince for ya. It don't take a scientist to see these fronts head up towards Alaska turn and drop down on us do some research even the European union is concerned and the cbc!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#43160 Feb 5, 2014
The Case for Space Solar Power
January 16, 2014

Author: John Mankins
Publisher: Amazon Digital Services (2014)
[+]
The Case for Solar Power.This book makes the Case for Space Solar Power. recounting the history of this fascinating concept and summarizing the many different ways in which it might be accomplished. It describes in detail a highly promising concept – SPS-ALPHA (Solar Power Satellite by means of Arbitrarily Large Phased Array)– and presents a business case comprising applications in space and markets on Earth.

The book explains how it is possible to begin now with technologies that are already at hand, while developing the more advanced technologies that will be needed to deliver power economically to markets on Earth.

The Case for Space Solar Power concludes by laying out a path forward that is both doable and affordable: within a dozen years or less, the first multi-megawatt pilot plant could be in operation. Getting started could cost less than $10 million over the first 2 years, less than $100 million over the next half dozen years.

Given that Space Solar Power would transform our future in space, and might provide a new source of virtually limitless and sustainable energy to markets across the world, the book poses the question: why wouldn’t we pursue Space Solar Power?

Topics: Electronics | Energy | Space
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43161 Feb 5, 2014
Space..........the final frontier! I guess before I say anything I better do some research on this cause you didn't explain how it works just how much well have to fork out ,sounds pretty out there!
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43162 Feb 5, 2014
I guarantee the cost of this will be 100 times stated above ,they want to send up thirty or more or these giant solar panels into orbit with these microwave ray guns to beem power down to earth stations around the globe. This sounds like power control to me better call Jesse Ventura see what he knows!
denier

Gurnee, IL

#43163 Feb 5, 2014
Here's some more for ya nasas new rocket cost estimated 38 billion dollars per rocket and they also estimate a 500 million dollar cost per launch I'm pretty sure us "uneducated" deniers don't nee a calculator for this one, what a joke!

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#43164 Feb 5, 2014
Data Findings

NASA’s total budget from 1959 (the year the Apollo program began) to 1972 (the year of the last Apollo mission) was $48.9 billion 1969 US dollars, or $266.4 billion 2008 US dollars.

The US annual federal outlays (the amount of money the country spends per year, which is typically more than our budget) from 1959 to 1972 totaled $1.9 trillion US dollars. Converting these outlays from each of their years to an inflation adjusted 2008 total brings the outlays to $11.9 trillion.

NASA represented roughly 2.2% of the total US federal outlays from 1959 to 1972. The Apollo project in the same timeframe accounted for about 50% of NASA’s budget or just 1.1% of US total federal outlays during this timeframe.

The total interest paid on US federal budget debt was $140.3 billion during this timeframe ($870.56 billion 2008 US dollars). This means that interest paid on debt accounted for 655% more outlays than the cost of the Apollo program in the same period. For reference, the US paid $252.8 billion in 2008 in interest on the national debt – nearly twice the total cost of the entire Apollo program.

The cost of the Vietnam War from 1965-1975 was $111 billion or $686 billion 2008 US dollars, 516% the cost of the Apollo program.

The final cost for the Interstate Highway System to the Federal government started in 1956 by President Eisenhower was $114 billion by completion in 1991, about $500 billion 2008 dollars, 376% the cost of the Apollo program.

The F-22 Raptor has been another source of much scrutiny in its expense. The dominant, highly advanced Air Force backed fighter jet program had an estimated cost of $62 billion in 2006,$66.9 billion 2008 US dollars – about half the cost of the Apollo program. As of this writing, the F-22 has never flown a combat mission.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated by the CBO to cost $2.4 trillion by 2017,$1.9 trillion attributed to Iraq. This is mainly because much of the cost of the war has been financed with borrowed money.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 has authorized the Treasury Secretary to spend up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars. It is hoped that the taxpayers will come out of this bailout program without too deep of a loss, that some portion of the expenditures will result in profits to offset the expected losses. The true cost of the recent Federal bailouts of the financial sector are unknown. If the program suffers a complete loss, it would represent 526% the cost of the Apollo program.

NASA estimated in 2005 that the cost to return to the Moon would be $104 billion over the course of 13 years. While these plans have recently come under great question, NASA has already invested some $7.7 billion in the project.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#43165 Feb 5, 2014
Apollo Program


Aside from all of the historic achievements that made it into the history books through the Apollo program, America had real, tangible gains from the investments made in the project. For one, the Apollo program was a major stepping stone into future beyond Earth projects. Much of the hardware developed during the Apollo era was used in our first space station, Skylab. Skylab produced many valuable results based on its solar observatory and various experiments performed onboard, none of which would have been possible without the Apollo program. Skylab is just one of many spacecraft that would not have been possible without the knowledge gained with the Apollo program. The 1975 space docking with the Soviet Soyuz spacecraft was one of the major steps forward in rebuilding relations between the US and the USSR, eventually resulting in the end of the Cold War. As far as more particular, physical products that would not have been possible, a variety of breakthroughs from early breast cancer detection to the accelerated development of integrated circuits were birthed by the Apollo program.

The unknown benefits of such a program could be tremendous!!! How different would your life be without the Apollo program?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#43167 Feb 5, 2014
Just think if we had spent all the money wasted on Iraq etc. on projects, such as Gerard K. O'Neill's High Frontier, where we might be today.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#43168 Feb 5, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Just think if we had spent all the money wasted on Iraq etc. on projects, such as Gerard K. O'Neill's High Frontier, where we might be today.
One day you libtards will wake up to the fact that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. The problem was the terrorists decided to attack us there causing us to stay longer than planned. Better there, however, than in Afghanistan, where fighting them in the hills would have been much worse. Bush decided not to follow the Russians into Afghanistan.

denier

Gurnee, IL

#43169 Feb 5, 2014
flack wrote:
Data Findings
NASA’s total budget from 1959 (the year the Apollo program began) to 1972 (the year of the last Apollo mission) was $48.9 billion 1969 US dollars, or $266.4 billion 2008 US dollars.
The US annual federal outlays (the amount of money the country spends per year, which is typically more than our budget) from 1959 to 1972 totaled $1.9 trillion US dollars. Converting these outlays from each of their years to an inflation adjusted 2008 total brings the outlays to $11.9 trillion.
NASA represented roughly 2.2% of the total US federal outlays from 1959 to 1972. The Apollo project in the same timeframe accounted for about 50% of NASA’s budget or just 1.1% of US total federal outlays during this timeframe.
The total interest paid on US federal budget debt was $140.3 billion during this timeframe ($870.56 billion 2008 US dollars). This means that interest paid on debt accounted for 655% more outlays than the cost of the Apollo program in the same period. For reference, the US paid $252.8 billion in 2008 in interest on the national debt – nearly twice the total cost of the entire Apollo program.
The cost of the Vietnam War from 1965-1975 was $111 billion or $686 billion 2008 US dollars, 516% the cost of the Apollo program.
The final cost for the Interstate Highway System to the Federal government started in 1956 by President Eisenhower was $114 billion by completion in 1991, about $500 billion 2008 dollars, 376% the cost of the Apollo program.
The F-22 Raptor has been another source of much scrutiny in its expense. The dominant, highly advanced Air Force backed fighter jet program had an estimated cost of $62 billion in 2006,$66.9 billion 2008 US dollars – about half the cost of the Apollo program. As of this writing, the F-22 has never flown a combat mission.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated by the CBO to cost $2.4 trillion by 2017,$1.9 trillion attributed to Iraq. This is mainly because much of the cost of the war has been financed with borrowed money.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 has authorized the Treasury Secretary to spend up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars. It is hoped that the taxpayers will come out of this bailout program without too deep of a loss, that some portion of the expenditures will result in profits to offset the expected losses. The true cost of the recent Federal bailouts of the financial sector are unknown. If the program suffers a complete loss, it would represent 526% the cost of the Apollo program.
NASA estimated in 2005 that the cost to return to the Moon would be $104 billion over the course of 13 years. While these plans have recently come under great question, NASA has already invested some $7.7 billion in the project.
80% government waste

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) 32 min USAsince1680 1,233,378
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 189,977
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 5 hr Scott Greczkowski 114
abby 5-25-15 5 hr blunt advice 6
Word (Dec '08) 8 hr _Zoey_ 5,242
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 8 hr _Zoey_ 410
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 9 hr Doug77 6,000
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 16 hr Go Blue Forever 99,560
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]