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
32,901 - 32,920 of 45,828 Comments Last updated 21 min ago

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34863
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

mememine69 wrote:
Just look how pathetic you doomers are now:
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once.
*Julian Assange is of course a climate change denier.
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
It won't matter until it's too late, then scumbags like you will be crying your eyes out and blaming scientists and government for doing nothing.

That'll be the ONE funny thing about runaway global warming...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34864
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
And the need to explain to people how Chernobyl and Fukushima were just flukey accidents and it 'can't happen here'.....:(
Well-said.

Poster unready-nanowatt praises a nonexistent "modern" reactor with unknown safety record. He loves it so much that he lashes out at scientists for not agreeing with him.

LOL.
TrollBot

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34865
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceCase wrote:
<quoted text>
(Another juvenile and content-free troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Helping ignore trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34866
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me?
You think I'm anti-nuke? Guess again. I've only tried to get you to be realistic about politics & lead times.
Yes, we do need modern nuclear plants - but that will take time. In the meantime, conservation is faster.
Right now, the barriers to nuclear are financial. No utility wants to commit to building a plant if they can't predict the market 20 years from now. It'd require leadership. Also a carbon tax to get people to understand the TRUE cost of burning Ffs.
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.

The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.

How cheap is that?

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34867
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

TrollBot wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll. Ignore.
"Helping ignore trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
Thanks! Consider yourself ignored in future.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34868
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It won't matter until it's too late, then scumbags like you will be crying your eyes out and blaming scientists and government for doing nothing.
That'll be the ONE funny thing about runaway global warming...
where can we plug in our electric cars?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34869
Apr 2, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
And the need to explain to people how Chernobyl and Fukushima were just flukey accidents and it 'can't happen here'.....:(
Well, they were flukey accidents. Fukushima was more disturbing, though, because the Japanese should have known better. "Tsunami" is a Japanese word, after all. The earthquake may have been their largest ever, but living next to a subduction zone, they should be prepared for very large quakes.

Remember, coal kills thousands of people annually between mining accidents, pollution, processing/transport, etc, etc. And that's not even considering its large carbon footprint, with all the future problems it will cause.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34870
Apr 2, 2013
 
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
where can we plug in our electric cars?
Uranus

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34871
Apr 2, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they were flukey accidents. Fukushima was more disturbing, though, because the Japanese should have known better. "Tsunami" is a Japanese word, after all. The earthquake may have been their largest ever, but living next to a subduction zone, they should be prepared for very large quakes.
Remember, coal kills thousands of people annually between mining accidents, pollution, processing/transport, etc, etc. And that's not even considering its large carbon footprint, with all the future problems it will cause.
The problem is that ONE "flukey accident" in the nuclear industry terrifies, kills rapidly, kills slowly, and contaminates for long periods of time. I'm not defending coal, but the fact that coal pollutes doesn't justify the vastly expensive and dangerous technology involved in nuclear power, IMO.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34872
Apr 2, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that ONE "flukey accident" in the nuclear industry terrifies, kills rapidly, kills slowly, and contaminates for long periods of time. I'm not defending coal, but the fact that coal pollutes doesn't justify the vastly expensive and dangerous technology involved in nuclear power, IMO.
Yes, nuclear technology is expensive & dangerous, & what you say is exactly right. It's also carbon-free once you get past construction, mining & transportation, however.

Newer generation plants, whether fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium, have much less waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter period of time, so at least that problem is more manageable now.

I've always recommended conservation & green power 1st, as much as possible, but when the sun doesn't shine & the wind doesn't blow, for some areas nuclear might be the best carbon-free option to take up the slack. That's just reality.

If reliable carbon sequestration technology could be developed, perhaps fossil fuels could be burned safely, & nuclear might not be necessary.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34873
Apr 2, 2013
 
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And every source I've read (not connected to the nuclear industry), says it will cost more to decommission them (even inflation adjusted) than it did to bring them on line.
The latest word I heard about Fukishima was that it would take thirty years to clean it completely up.
How cheap is that?
How cheap is that? It's a LOT cheaper than having New York City inundated by the sea. How much is Boston worth? Providence? Washington DC? How about the entire Florida peninsula?

The consequences & costs of emitting carbon into the atmosphere will be almost incaluculably expensive. They dwarf EVERYTHING else.

Like I said, nuclear would not be my 1st option, but it's certainly preferable to continuing to burn fossil fuels without restraint or carbon sequestration. If we could develop fuels that aren't from FFs, that would be another reasonable alternative.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34874
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, nuclear technology is expensive & dangerous, & what you say is exactly right. It's also carbon-free once you get past construction, mining & transportation, however.
Newer generation plants, whether fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium, have much less waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter period of time, so at least that problem is more manageable now.
I've always recommended conservation & green power 1st, as much as possible, but when the sun doesn't shine & the wind doesn't blow, for some areas nuclear might be the best carbon-free option to take up the slack. That's just reality.
If reliable carbon sequestration technology could be developed, perhaps fossil fuels could be burned safely, & nuclear might not be necessary.
I agree that nuclear power has some advantages when talking about gases, particulates, C02, etc. It seems wonderfully clean...until you go to dispose of the waste, or have an accident.

It's like a jet-pack....wonderfully fun and enjoyable until it runs out of propellant when you're 500 feet in the air...:)

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34875
Apr 2, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
... it runs out of propellant when you're 500 feet in the air...:)
OOPS... ka-BOOM!
LOL
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34876
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
..... nuclear power has some advantages when talking about gases, particulates, C02, etc. It seems wonderfully clean...until you go to dispose of the waste, or have an accident.......
........ or consider them as terrorist targets or thefts.
cricket

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34877
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...

No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34878
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study .. deleted
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
He's 72 yo.

No reason you are happy, lol.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34879
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
More equine excrement from a deniers' organization.

There's a LOT of oil money available, folks! Grab some! All you have to do is lie thru your teeth & forget about how much your progeny, should you have any, will DESPISE you. Sweet.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34880
Apr 2, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
How cheap is that? It's a LOT cheaper than having New York City inundated by the sea. How much is Boston worth? Providence? Washington DC? How about the entire Florida peninsula?
The consequences & costs of emitting carbon into the atmosphere will be almost incaluculably expensive. They dwarf EVERYTHING else.
Like I said, nuclear would not be my 1st option, but it's certainly preferable to continuing to burn fossil fuels without restraint or carbon sequestration. If we could develop fuels that aren't from FFs, that would be another reasonable alternative.
I wasn't comparing the cost of a city to the cost of a nuclear power plant. I was being sarcastic about all the claims that have been made about nuclear from the beginning, from "too cheap to meter" to cheaper than converting to wind and solar.

But if you wish, let's discuss how expensive nuclear can really be.

1. Nuclear has already missed the boat. In the time it would take to build the 100 or so more plants that we might need, you will already have lost NOLA, Norfolk, NYC, LA, Boston, and Miami. When's the last time one was licensed? When was construction started? What is the completion date? Solar, wind, natural gas, and some other technological breakthrough have already or may soon establish a foothold for energy production that nuclear might never be able to defeat.

2. The nuclear industry has assured us that reactors are so safe that there would only be one major accident every 100 years. So far, we've had three in 60 years. Nuclear power may be safe, but as long as humans are involved...no. All three of the major accidents THAT WE KNOW OF were caused by humans, from poor planning to paper clips holding switches open.

3. The waste problem still hasn't been addressed. And (refer to my original post), decommissioning and dismantling each site will be the equivalent of finding somewhere to put a small town's worth of radioactive construction debris for each one.

4. Looking at the prevailing winds and what has happened at Fukashima and Chernobyl, you could just as easily lose NYC, Boston, or Chicago in one nuclear accident. Maybe the chances ARE small, but the CONSEQUENCES of that very small chance are monumental.

5. Like solar and wind, nuclear does not address the automobile and aviation industries at the present time. A total switch to electric of all ground transportation immediately would be very compatible with nuclear, but that ain't happening either, right now.

6. Then there's the other very, very rare possibilities associated with a major malfunction, like terrorists, earthquakes, floods, and even meteorites.

So, I agree, nuclear is an alternative, but not a very good one. It's cheap until it isn't. THEN, it's very expensive, in lives, land, and money.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34881
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

cricket wrote:
roflmao
NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
snip:
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet. However, this compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/l...
No wonder Hansen is retiring. lol.
rolling on the floor laughing your ass off at what? The original NASA article said nothing like what you said it does.

And of three citations at the end, one is from 1951.

Grab a little harder. And go for bigger straws. Maybe you'll finally get something.
Common sense

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34882
Apr 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Anyone that thinks climate change is man made is an idiot

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Altamonte Springs Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Altamonte Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Altamonte Springs News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Altamonte Springs
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••