Study: Warming is stronger, happening sooner

SuzannePjam

Cosmo wrote:

I am confunsed here... someone needs to point out the part where someone here blames President Bush for Global Warming. The closest thing I can find is Suzanne saying it's a shame that the current administration has spent the past 8 years doing nothing about it... which, i agreee is wrong in the sense that it hasn't actually been a total of 8 years (more like 6 3/4 years) and it wasn't until recently that this administration has even admitted that Global warming is indded, occuring.
...
Will the Bush supporters please, point me towards the statement that says Bush is to blame for 'Global Warming'? Thanx.

Thank you, Cosmo. I figured it will be 8 years of not doing much by the time this administration is out because Cheney still says we need to debate the issue. Sorry, wasn't clear on that.

Yes, I wasn't saying that Bush was responsible for global warming at all. Or blaming republicans. But unfortunately President Bush backed away from the Kyoto Treaty, and the White House has distorted the findings of federal climate scientists, playing down the threat of climate change. Energy policies have been written by representatives from the energy companies to forestall limits on climate polluters. And yes, for the person who wrote about wind energy, the White House did appropriate 3.4 million dollars for wind energy research and development in 2006, but he slashed the Department of Energy's research into alternative energy sources by $50 million dollars as a whole. In the 2007 budget, the white house has proposed the sale of $800 million dollars in park lands.

As far as what I'm doing to help, of course it's not enough either. I do take mass transit to work (p.s. The Bush administration is cutting Amtrack's budget by 103 million dollars in 2008), have changed all my light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs and am looking at hybrid cars for purchase this spring.

And what's with all the Suzy stuff? lol! :rolleyes:

polaris

drought in georgia and wildfires caused by dryness in southern california and high winds ...

the financial impacts are massive but the money-makers still make money so it's all good ...

Cosmo

Editorial Note:
To correct... the Permian Mass Extinction occurred some 250 Million years ago, not 25 Million as earlier noted. The causes of the Permian Extinction are in dispute so it cannot be singularily attribute to climatic cycles. Plate Tectonics, Volcanic or impact events are not considered 'cyclical'.
The Great Extinction that ended the reign of the Dinosaurs occurred some 65 Million years ago... about 185 Million Years after the Permian Extinction.

onelongsong

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I'm pretty sure the great lakes have been shrinking.. where on earth are you getting this info from??? Eventually the great lakes will no longer exist as Niagra falls erodes away and everything drains into the ocean.. the great lakes are just leftover melted ice from the ice age.

Sure it fluctuates, and may have been on the rise when you lived here, but global warming WILL NOT cause the great lakes to rise. Lake Michigan is 577 feet ABOVE see level and will eventually all drain into the oceans.. Haven't you seen iRobot where there is a futuristic dried up lake Michigan???

the great lakes are growing. if i said shrinking i'm sorry. lake michigan is 577 ft asl but look at its watershed. water from several states drain into lake michigan. as the ice melts it puts humidity into the air which in turn will bring rains. why do you think niagra falls exists? the biggest factor here is the fault that everyone ignores. i expect an earthquake to be the biggest cause of the river i mentioned. i haven't see irobot. i'm sure it was as factual as ghostbusters.

LikeAnOcean

onelongsong wrote:

the great lakes are growing. if i said shrinking i'm sorry. lake michigan is 577 ft asl but look at its watershed. water from several states drain into lake michigan. as the ice melts it puts humidity into the air which in turn will bring rains. why do you think niagra falls exists? the biggest factor here is the fault that everyone ignores. i expect an earthquake to be the biggest cause of the river i mentioned. i haven't see irobot. i'm sure it was as factual as ghostbusters.

Here you go..

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19426064.100

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

and that's exactly what's happening.
i left illinois for the mountains because chicago is the worst place to be. first; chicago is built on fill. it was originally a swamp. the rise in lake level has been effecting the coastline since the 80's but the 90's was worse. people in highland park and glenco were complaining because they owned these multi million dollar houses and they were losing it to lake michigan. (i lived there).
i expect a river from kenosha to the indiana dunes wide flowing through illinois into the mississippi river. time will tell if i'm right.

well I think you're wrong. chicago is one of the best places to be. we have no natural disasters. (tornadoes near the city are rare, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, no risk of wildfires). seriously how can chicago be the worst place to be? that makes no sense. I'll give you two plces that are much much much worse. Californian and Florida. and those are states not cities.

if anything, lake michigan is going to recede not flood the city.

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

Editorial Note:
To correct... the Permian Mass Extinction occurred some 250 Million years ago, not 25 Million as earlier noted. The causes of the Permian Extinction are in dispute so it cannot be singularily attribute to climatic cycles. Plate Tectonics, Volcanic or impact events are not considered 'cyclical'.
The Great Extinction that ended the reign of the Dinosaurs occurred some 65 Million years ago... about 185 Million Years after the Permian Extinction.

i got the dates mixed up. i'll do that sometimes. as much as i'd like to be; i'm not perfect.
in 1998; an expedition to greenland found the evidence that the siberian flatts caused global warming to the point where the frozen methane melted and added the additional gasses to raise the earths temperature even more.
true; this is not accepted by all scientists. global warming isn't even accepted by all scientists; but that's what the evidence shows. there's a good show on the science discovery channel which goes into great depth and i highly reccomend it. it will answer all your questions. i've looked over the evidence and i believe what is before my eyes. the earlier theories don't have sufficient evidence to make a firm conclusion and that's why everyone was left guessing. the layer of methane found in greenland is enough evidence for me.

onelongsong

Pj_Gurl wrote:

of course it's about the oil, blood soaked oil. it's certainly not about the sand.

you ask this almost with surprise. as though i am the only person who feels this way. this has already been debated to death on here.

unless of course, you believe there really were weapons of mass destruction and saddam will use them against us all as soon as he rises from the dead?

then when the fact there were no WMD found, we were expected to buy the story of "democractizing the middle east" a ridiculous notion for anyone familiar with the nation of Iraq. bush and his oil clique have brought a genuine holocaust to the people of Iraq. all for stealing oil from a third world country. There are now an estimated 900,000 dead innocent cilivian Iraqis and almost 6,000,000 homeless refugees. The country has been laid waste, and the infrastructure and economy destroyed.

so far, the occupation of Iraq has cost the US $510 billion. For that amount of money, the US could have gone a long way to replacing every gasoline powered car in the US with an electric model and blanked the country with solar panels and wind turbines. but, no, that would not be profitable for the arms dealers and oil companies that now call the shots in Washington.

killing saddam was a personal vendetta for bush. bush Sr gave WMD to saddam so we know he HAD them. clinton gave him biologicals which he used on his own villages. but the war will bring freedom to an entire nation that was under the control of a dictator. we freed europe from a dictator twice in the last century. look at the cost of those wars to the us. oh; but those were white people. it's ok if we bring freedom to white people. that's what you're about.
everyone has access to electric cars. drive accross the country and you'll see wind farms covering the landscape. there are even wind farms off the coasts. we have both active and passive solar everything from electricity to hot water to food dehydrators. state and federal governments give tax credits to make solar options cheaper for you. the laws in most states have been changed to require NET METERING so if you go solar; you can sell back extra power at the same price you pay for electricity. wtf more do you want? the only thing left is for the government to REQUIRE you to make the solar upgrades.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

how do you know we are not? who is we're? nothing pisses me off more than people who make assumptions about other people and the way they live. you have no idea.
when my family did extensions on our home, many changes were made. to name a few..
solar panels were installed and our hot water energy consumption has been decreased by 80%.
got rid of the clothes drier, turned off the second fridge, turned off anything not in use, insulated everything, changed shower heads in the bathrooms, installed dual flush toilet cisterns, new generation fluorescent tubes, that use 80% less energy to produce the same light. installed extra rain water tanks, you name it we did it. they are just a few of the changes we made.

my point is, we are doing our part.

if you do; then i wasn't talking to you. "we're" are the people that have made the changes. we've spent the money to reduce our carbon footprint because we want our grandchildren to inherit a world that is livable. i want my greatgrandchildren to be able to play outside without special suits. WE'RE the people trying to make a difference and trying to save a dying planet. if you're doing your part; then this wasn't directed at you and YOU are a part of WE'RE.

onelongsong

LikeAnOcean wrote:

Here you go..

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19426064.100

and i can post sites showing chicago will be gone. this is a great time to be a scientist. all you have to do is disagree with mainstream and you get publicity. your 15 minutes of fame so to speak.
if you build a website; they will look at it.

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

and i can post sites showing chicago will be gone. this is a great time to be a scientist. all you have to do is disagree with mainstream and you get publicity. your 15 minutes of fame so to speak.
if you build a website; they will look at it.

ok then post it. you are one who is more then agreeing our fresh water source will soon be gone. so how is this one filling up?

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

well I think you're wrong. chicago is one of the best places to be. we have no natural disasters. (tornadoes near the city are rare, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, no risk of wildfires). seriously how can chicago be the worst place to be? that makes no sense. I'll give you two plces that are much much much worse. Californian and Florida. and those are states not cities.

if anything, lake michigan is going to recede not flood the city.

rising sea levels effect more than the oceans. the mississippi river will rise. water levels will rise. in some places like here; they are receeding.
time will tell my friend. the proof is in the pudding so we'll see what the next 50 years bring.

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

ok then post it. you are one who is more then agreeing our fresh water source will soon be gone. so how is this one filling up?

why? why waste my time? our fresh water sources will be gone and i gave new orleans as the model why. flood water mixed with sewage; oil; gas; chemicals including those herbicices and weed killers people had in they're garages; and everything else that mixed with the water. fema was told to hold back because the water was toxic. coffins were floating out of newly dug graves. so new orleans is the perfect model of what happens when a city floods. i'm the first to say you'll have plenty of water. i'm saying you won't have fresh drinking water. i almost forgot; as the water rises; that toxic stew will drain into the wells it covers; thus destroying the aquafer. after some time; the toxins will leach into the soil getting into the aquifer. as the waters receed; what kind of crops or food do you plan on growing in that toxic soil?

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

rising sea levels effect more than the oceans. the mississippi river will rise. water levels will rise. in some places like here; they are receeding.
time will tell my friend. the proof is in the pudding so we'll see what the next 50 years bring.

yea I hear ya. but for you to say chicago is the worst place to be is just incorrect. we have no natural disasters period. maybe I'm wrong but lake michigan hasnt been rising, and has no large mountains directly feeding it. I dont see how or why, all of a sudden, its going to start.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

i got the dates mixed up. i'll do that sometimes. as much as i'd like to be; i'm not perfect.
in 1998; an expedition to greenland found the evidence that the siberian flatts caused global warming to the point where the frozen methane melted and added the additional gasses to raise the earths temperature even more.
true; this is not accepted by all scientists. global warming isn't even accepted by all scientists; but that's what the evidence shows. there's a good show on the science discovery channel which goes into great depth and i highly reccomend it. it will answer all your questions. i've looked over the evidence and i believe what is before my eyes. the earlier theories don't have sufficient evidence to make a firm conclusion and that's why everyone was left guessing. the layer of methane found in greenland is enough evidence for me.

...
The point I'm getting at... global Warming is not a cyclical event. The Global Warming you speak of was due to an occurance on the planet that affected the atmosphere. You are not suggesting that this event occurs on a regular basis, are you?

810wmb

Cosmo wrote:

...
The point I'm getting at... global Warming is not a cyclical event. The Global Warming you speak of was due to an occurance on the planet that affected the atmosphere. You are not suggesting that this event occurs on a regular basis, are you?

the earth has always heated and cooled

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

why? why waste my time? our fresh water sources will be gone and i gave new orleans as the model why. flood water mixed with sewage; oil; gas; chemicals including those herbicices and weed killers people had in they're garages; and everything else that mixed with the water. fema was told to hold back because the water was toxic. coffins were floating out of newly dug graves. so new orleans is the perfect model of what happens when a city floods. i'm the first to say you'll have plenty of water. i'm saying you won't have fresh drinking water. i almost forgot; as the water rises; that toxic stew will drain into the wells it covers; thus destroying the aquafer. after some time; the toxins will leach into the soil getting into the aquifer. as the waters receed; what kind of crops or food do you plan on growing in that toxic soil?

posting links to back up your story isnt a waste of time but do as you will. you come on here and talk a big game, not a bad idea to back up your shit.

and chicago isnt built below sea level. lake Michigan isnt rising. chicago is one of the safest places to live in the country from natural disasters and floods.

all of these places are reporting low water

http://glakesonline.nos.noaa.gov/

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/index.shtml

9087096 Port Inland, MI
9087088 Menominee, MI
9087079 Green Bay, WI
9087072 Sturgeon Bay Canal, WI
9087068 Kewaunee, WI
9087057 Milwaukee, WI
9087031 Holland, MI
9087023 Ludington, MI
9076070 S.W. Pier, MI
9076060 U.S. Slip, MI
9076032 Little Rapids, MI
9076028 Lookout Station #4, MI
9076024 Rock Cut, MI
9075099 De Tour Village, MI
9075080 Mackinaw City, MI
9075065 Alpena, MI
9075059 Harrisville, MI
9075014 Harbor Beach, MI

and they this arent just some "crazy scientist" websites.

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I hear ya. but for you to say chicago is the worst place to be is just incorrect. we have no natural disasters period. maybe I'm wrong but lake michigan hasnt been rising, and has no large mountains directly feeding it. I dont see how or why, all of a sudden, its going to start.

when i lived there you guys called me a trouter. i'd fish for stealhead in the many streams that fed into lake michigan. when i lived in northbrook; there were always stories about the erosion of the shoreline. i haven't followed your weather so maybe you're getting less rain. maybe they're draining the lake more because of the population explosion. chicago to milwaukee was almost 1 big city last time i visited there. you know what's happening there much more than i do. i'm not saying i'm right and everyone else is wrong. i'm just stating what my model predicted. i hope i'm wrong because my family still lives there. this is just a friendly debate about peoples opinions and why they have those opinions.
i like just about everyone here and my living in a remote location has made all of you my friends. so roll a number; kick back; and let's talk.

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

when i lived there you guys called me a trouter. i'd fish for stealhead in the many streams that fed into lake michigan. when i lived in northbrook; there were always stories about the erosion of the shoreline. i haven't followed your weather so maybe you're getting less rain. maybe they're draining the lake more because of the population explosion. chicago to milwaukee was almost 1 big city last time i visited there. you know what's happening there much more than i do. i'm not saying i'm right and everyone else is wrong. i'm just stating what my model predicted. i hope i'm wrong because my family still lives there. this is just a friendly debate about peoples opinions and why they have those opinions.
i like just about everyone here and my living in a remote location has made all of you my friends. so roll a number; kick back; and let's talk.

I like ya OLS, you seem like a nice guy. but you are rather arrogant when it comes to this stuff. and I'm no angel myself. and you certainly know much more about the environment and how to live off it then I ever will. I just took issue with your chicago comment. not becuase I live here, but because chicago is one of the safest places to live.

I find it crazy that people even live in CA or FL (or most of the east coast)

we have all been hearing about the "big one" thats going to hit CA someday, or every year the threat of another Hurricane Andrew or Katrina. even the fires happening now are mostly in an areas prone to fires....

why the hell people live there is beyond me, but chicago has none of those.

onelongsong

810wmb wrote:

the earth has always heated and cooled

the reason for this is because the earth has an eliptical orbit around the sun. when we are closer to the sun; it is warmer; when we are farther from the sun; we are cooler. the problem is that we are getting farther from the sun. remember all those predictions that we're moving into an ice age. it's because of the earths orbit is moving away from the sun. the earth should be 1 degree cooler than it was 100 years ago. but it isn't and that's what all the fuss is about.

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

I like ya OLS, you seem like a nice guy. but you are rather arrogant when it comes to this stuff. and I'm no angel myself. and you certainly know much more about the environment and how to live off it then I ever will. I just took issue with your chicago comment. not becuase I live here, but because chicago is one of the safest places to live.

I find it crazy that people even live in CA or FL (or most of the east coast)

we have all been hearing about the "big one" thats going to hit CA someday, or every year the threat of another Hurricane Andrew or Katrina. even the fires happening now are mostly in an areas prone to fires....

why the hell people live there is beyond me, but chicago has none of those.

you're right. when i think i'm right i do get arrogant. i'm sorry about that. maybe it comes from living in a remote area and not having human contact. everyone here likes me but i really don't have that human interaction so i don't have people skills.
on the other hand you've changed my mind on a few subjects and showed me a different way to look at things. so what comes off as arrogant; is still changed by reasonable debate.
thanks for putting up with me.

i feel like i'm getting the flu so i'm going to bed. i'll talk to you tomorrow.