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

Full story: Newsday 47,501
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
cub

Cleveland, TN

#33617 Jan 16, 2013
huh

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#33618 Jan 16, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it is not my word, but that of scientists who have studied and measured as carefully as possible. We may not know exactly how much radiation would kill you but we do know that if the level exceeds a certain amount that your life is going to be compromised.
Science is never exact. It is simply what we perceive from observations and logic. However, we must live in the universe as we do perceive it. For example, we expect a mass to remain at rest or move at a uniform velocity unless it is acted upon by an outside force.
We also expect the ocean to continue to become more acidic as we increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. We also expect the Earth to warm as the CO2 increases. To do otherwise would be in direct opposition of our understandings of universal perceptions. To not accept this would be to disregard all human understandings of our existence and a total disregard for science and Western philosophy. If that were to be so, what would be its replacement?
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped.

Often, what is preceived is discovered to be wrong. At one time it was preceived that the universe rotated around the earth and that the earth was flat. Later it was discovered that what was preceived was wrong. That the earth was a sphere and that it was only a fragment of the universe. The interesting thing is how those early learned men clinged to this idea dispite the proof that they were wrong the way you cling to the idea that man is the cause of climate change. In both cases, the need to believe that man was important to the scheme of things is central. The need to see man in complete control and master of the universe. To see man as the center of existance.

“fairtax.org”

Level 8

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33619 Jan 16, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped.
Often, what is preceived is discovered to be wrong. At one time it was preceived that the universe rotated around the earth and that the earth was flat. Later it was discovered that what was preceived was wrong. That the earth was a sphere and that it was only a fragment of the universe. The interesting thing is how those early learned men clinged to this idea dispite the proof that they were wrong the way you cling to the idea that man is the cause of climate change. In both cases, the need to believe that man was important to the scheme of things is central. The need to see man in complete control and master of the universe. To see man as the center of existance.
Right on!!!
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33620 Jan 16, 2013
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33621 Jan 16, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with what one preceives is it can be affect by a preconceived idea. For example, you want to believe that the reason for climate change is CO2 produced by man so you have a proconceived view or the world. In that preconceived view you cannot see that CO2 levels increased after the temperature did. Later they discovered the reason was permafrost was releasing that and methane which had been trapped. Which means that it had to be there when the earth in that are froze and was trapped....
And of course the warming from the additional CO2 causes more permafrost to be melted thus heating the atmosphere more and more.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33622 Jan 16, 2013
large lying language wrote:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.

In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.

"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////

Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33623 Jan 16, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
You made me laugh a bit! Do you have any points, except just make stuff up? The way to tackle global warming is to adapt the earth, the enviroment to the condition of the heat, not prevent electricity, how vain.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33625 Jan 16, 2013
'large lying language' lying:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
litesong continues:
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
//////////
'large lying language' lying:
Do you ........just make stuff up?
//////////
litesong wrote:
Caught in its lie,'large lying language' lies in larger leaps, livening its V-8.
PHD

Overton, TX

#33626 Jan 16, 2013
pinheadlitesout wrote:
'large lying language' lying:
Even clinton, one of the democrats saw what trivial business global warming preventation was.
//////////
pinheadlitesout wrote:
Yeah, like an abnormal toxic topix AGW denier, "large lying language" plants lies in every conceivable way.
In a talk given in 1997 & reported in MIT news:
President Clinton told the scientists that his goal was to convince the general public that global warming is a man-made problem that can be alleviated if confronted and managed sensibly.
"It is obvious that we cannot fulfill our responsibilities to future generations unless we deal responsibly with the challenge of climate change," President Clinton said. "Whenever the security of our country has been threatened, we have led the world to a better resolution. That is what is at stake here."
//////////
pinheadlitesout continues:
Does "large lying language" like lying? Yes, "large lying language" likes lying, in large leaps.
Did I say that "large lying language" was a lying machine?
Yes, "large lying language" is a V-8 of lying machines.
//////////
'large lying language' lying:
Do you ........just make stuff up?
//////////
pinheadlitesout wrote:
Caught in its lie,'large lying language' lies in larger leaps, livening its V-8.
WOW your getting spanked from around the world now. You should get that check upo from the neck up you really really need.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33627 Jan 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>WOW your getting spanked from around the world now. You should get that check upo from the neck up you really really need.
All you do is repeat the same schlock/personal insults.
Revealing, no?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33628 Jan 16, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You made me laugh a bit! Do you have any points, except just make stuff up? The way to tackle global warming is to adapt the earth, the enviroment to the condition of the heat, not prevent electricity, how vain.
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.

Here you go

The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.

However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:

<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett

Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto

Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.

In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.

The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.

"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."

The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.

The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...

If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33629 Jan 16, 2013
Seems simple enough. I'm buying up beachfront property on Baffin Island myself.

Oughtta be a goldmine ...
PHD

Overton, TX

#33630 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
All you do is repeat the same schlock/personal insults.
Revealing, no?
It would only be an insult if the insult fits your personality and it does. See I do respond in kind.
worse than we thought

United States

#33631 Jan 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.
Here you go
The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.
However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:
<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett
Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto
Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.
The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.
"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."
The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...
If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
geoengineering by humans 'wallop', has been going on since the 1940's. many patents have been applied for and issued for the various ways humans have been tampering with nature. these and more are explained in this documentary below about the ongoing practice of contrails and the results of this geoengineering practice done on a massive scale.



here is an article, with some excellent pictures of blowing clouds of iron oxide dust, of how nature does it. there is a big difference between these pictures and some billionare illegaly dumping iron dust into the ocean off the shore of british columbia thinking he is saving the world.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/th...
PHD

Overton, TX

#33632 Jan 17, 2013
worse than we thought wrote:
<quoted text> geoengineering by humans 'wallop', has been going on since the 1940's. many patents have been applied for and issued for the various ways humans have been tampering with nature. these and more are explained in this documentary below about the ongoing practice of contrails and the results of this geoengineering practice done on a massive scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =mEfJO0-cTisXX
here is an article, with some excellent pictures of blowing clouds of iron oxide dust, of how nature does it. there is a big difference between these pictures and some billionare illegaly dumping iron dust into the ocean off the shore of british columbia thinking he is saving the world.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/th...
yYou walloped the wallop again. Good Job!!!
Rahm Jizzbucket Emanuel

Oswego, IL

#33633 Jan 17, 2013
Coal, its whats cooking dinner!
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33634 Jan 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you aware scientists are looking for ways to adapt the earth, and can find no solutions.
Here you go
The cooling effect of Aerosols has been known for decades and climatologists have long suggested it as a possible counter to increased global warming emissions.
However, this recent study showed there were problems with that solution:
<<Geoengineering can't please everyone
Adding aerosols to the atmosphere will not counter global warming in all regions.
Richard A. Lovett
Releasing sulphates from aeroplanes would not ward off the effects of global warming equally well for all regions of the world.iStockphoto
Attempting to offset global warming by injecting sunlight-reflecting gases into the upper atmosphere isn't the quick fix for global climate change that advocates believe it might be, a new study finds.
In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience1, Kate Ricke, a climate physicist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and her colleagues show, by modelling, that not only could solar-radiation management lead to declines in rainfall in the long term, but its effects will also vary by region. Some places will be over-cooled by atmospheric changes that are too small to be effective for their neighbours.
The gases under consideration are sulphur compounds that would produce sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Geoengineering advocates have proposed injecting large quantities of these materials into the stratosphere, either by shooting them up in artillery shells or releasing them from high-flying aeroplanes. Once there, they would disperse into a thin, bright haze that would reflect enough sunlight back into space to partially or completely offset global warming.
"It confirms that it is not possible to control both temperature and precipitation using stratospheric geoengineering."
The goal would be to mimic the effects of volcanoes eruptions such as the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted enough sulphates into the stratosphere to temporarily reduce the global temperature by nearly half a degree. Geoengineers propose mimicking this on ever-expanding scales, so that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are offset by ever-greater levels of sunlight reduction.
The new study found that it is fairly easy to design sulphate-injection scenarios that keep the temperature stable until 2080. But, unfortunately, the change in sunlight alters other weather patterns. "It changes the distribution of energy in the troposphere so that it becomes more convectively stable," Ricke says. The result: decreasing precipitation
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100718/full/n...
If you have a better plan than the scientists, be SPECIFIC, ok??
The scientists. Always right aren't they. Why not send them up into the ozone, how would you know it would be too cool?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33635 Jan 17, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists. Always right aren't they. Why not send them up into the ozone, how would you know it would be too cool?
Did you wish to be sent into the O-Zone?

That would be too cool.

:-D
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33637 Jan 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Did you wish to be sent into the O-Zone?
That would be too cool.
:-D
Cheeky humour. SpaceClown? Is that a clown from out of space?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33638 Jan 17, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheeky humour. SpaceClown? Is that a clown from out of space?
No, I'm SpaceBlues.

Are you trying to spell Lagrangian?

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min woodtick57 1,127,230
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 9 min bunner 488,767
Jodi Arias: Does the state have the goods to co... (Mar '13) 39 min Mary NY 25,898
5000 post wins (Feb '13) 6 hr honeymylove 4,182
last post wins! (Jul '11) 6 hr honeymylove 5,285
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 8 hr Murph 70,504
Double Fun Word Game (Mar '11) 8 hr Peter Vayeos Boy ... 11,956
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 23 hr Liz Spector 17,711
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando Jobs

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]