Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35577 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jul 29, 2010, titled Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25036 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't you believe in evolution.
Nut Lyin’ Brian, you can’t POSSIBLY believe in evolution! After all, so much of it is an historical science, just like the list of historical sciences that I asked if you DENY as you do climate science. You know, just another rebuttal THAT YOU DISHONESTLY IGNORED.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25037 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I know you don't get the role of experiments in testing theory and prototypes and model improvements brought to market?
And we all know that you are paid far too well to acknowledge anything your told about how RETARDED it is for you to cling to your 5th grade level of understanding of what constitutes valid science AFTER BEING CORRECTED A DOZEN TIMES.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25038 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't buy a pig in a poke.
And please folks, don’t give any credibility to a pig like Lyin’ Brian.

And now, because we know that Lyin' Brian is fully capable of dishonestly ignoring refutations both in bulk and singularly, I will repost the science that he refuses to acknowledge.

He will refuse to acknowledge it again. Or possibly, he will acknowledge it, and then proceed to excrete a foul melange of fallacies, misdirection, and hand-waving nonsense.

Which will, of course, no matter which tack he takes, illustrate that Lyin' Brian is anti-science, anti-reality, intellectually dishonest, grossly dishonest in general, and not here to get to the truth but to promote what he knows to be lies.

He could, theoretically, acknowledge these refutations and deal with them in an honest manner, but I hereby swear that I'll donate my entire net worth to the Koch brothers and commit suicide if he actually does that.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25039 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no way to differentiate fossil carbon from natural sources .... Without experiments, there's no way to know ..

RealClimate has a post explaining how climatologists can say with some certainty that the observed increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere comes from human activity. The IPCC report goes into detail about many of the lines of reasoning, but RealClimate adds another scientific argument. Let me break it down:

Carbon atoms come in three different isotopes (types based on the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus): carbon-12 (referred to by chemists as 12C); carbon-13 (13C); and carbon-14 (14C), best known for its use in archeological dating. The proportion of these three types is well-studied, in large part because of the radiocarbon dating work. Historically, carbon-12 makes up the vast majority of carbon atoms, carbon-13 makes up just 1.11%, and carbon-14 atoms are just 1 in 1 trillion among the carbon atoms out there.

An important fact to keep in mind: in fossil fuels, there are fewer carbon-13 atoms relative to carbon-12 atoms than in the atmosphere. This is because carbon-13 weighs just a tiny amount (one neutron's worth) more than carbon-12 and, over time, some physical processes can filter out the different isotopes.

Research attempting to improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating has come up with a detailed record of variations in the proportionate levels of carbon over the last 10,000 years. At no point in the last 10,000 years has the relative proportion of 13C in the atmosphere been as low as it is now. Furthermore, the ratio of 13C to 12C starts to decrease (as measured in tree ring data, ice core data, and coral data) at the exact same time that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide starts to rise, around 1850. The total change in proportion is about 0.15%, a seemingly-small number, but one which is huge in terms of isotope variation in nature. The last glacial-to-interglacial change in the ice core records, which took many thousands of years, saw only a 0.03% change. Labs can measure variations in 13C to 12C as low as 0.005%.

In short, then:

In the mid-19th century, humans began using increasing amounts of fossil fuels (which have a lower proportion of 13C than the atmosphere);
In the mid-19th century, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide began to rise in a way that exceeded historical variability;
In the mid-19th century, the proportion of 13C in the atmosphere began to drop relative to 12C.

The most reasonable explanation is therefore that the increase in atmospheric carbon came primarily from the increased use of fossil fuels.

But a somewhat simpler argument also demonstrates that the rising CO2 concentrations are due to human activities: fossil fuel carbon is basically devoid of 14C. 14C, or "radiocarbon", radioactively decays (with a half-life of about 5700 years) and is essentially absent in 200-300 million year old oil and coal.

And guess what? Measurements of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere show that a big share of the rising CO2 levels are devoid of 14C. So these emissions are from *old* carbon. Really, really old. Can anyone say *fossil* fuels?

Another nail in the coffin.

But remember that not all of the rising CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. A lot (about 1-2 billion tons of carbon per year) the emission are also due to land use practices, such as deforestation and land degradation. Compared to the ~6 billion tons of carbon burned in fossil fuels each year, it is still relatively small. But land use used to be a bigger part of the carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and was actually larger than the fossil fuel emissions until the 1950s.

The 13C argument is reasonable too, but the 14C to be convincing as well.

That leaves only this new RETARDED claim - "Oil seeps from natural reservoirs ... and their isotope signatures are the same."

EVIDENCE THAT SEEPS ARE A TRILLION X'S BIGGER?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25040 Apr 9, 2013
LYIN' BRIAN -“Learn the difference between an experiment and history, experiments are pre planned, controlled and have the goal of testing a theory. What's the most compelling experiment you've seen?”

Yes, yes, yes, we know you’re not a scientist; you don’t have to beat that dead horse by displaying your gross scientific illiteracy. Here’s a couple of ways you’re dead wrong:

1) Rejection of historical sciences - If you reject climate science on the basis of it being an historical science, then may we presume that you reject all of the historical sciences? Evolution? Geology? Paleontology? Astronomy? Astrophysics?

2) Defining science as ONLY single factor controlled experiments – ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS ONCE, MORON, SO PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME. I’ve personally designed and executed experiments with several independent variables, some of which I couldn’t control, yet I was able to extract not only the contributions of each to each response variable, I was able to determine the effects of the interactions between two variables – sometimes even three way interactions. This is std stuff. Piece of cake. Done every day in 100’s of different fields. YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Mater ...

Simplistic table top experiments for school children impress you? Why didn’t you say so; I thought you insisted on planetary scale testing. No problem then; every conceivable aspect of the physics has been examined, beginning 150 yrs ago.

LYIN' BRIAN -“Check them out, maybe you'll learn ad hoc fossil fuel use over time since the industrial revolution isn't an experiment.”

Read an effin’ book, maybe you’ll learn that your simplistic, limited, 5th grade concept of science is RETARDED.

“I'm impressed with the data's extremely low CO2 temperature effect.”

I’m impressed (not) by your reading comprehension, considering that YOUR LINK said in the SECOND SENTENCE,“Only qualitative conclusions are drawn from the experimental results, and these are critically and carefully applied to climate related issues.”

For the hard of thinking – QUALITATIVE MEANS NOT QUANTITATIVE. D_O__Y_O_U__U_N_D_E_R_S_T_A_N_ D__T_H_E__W_O_R_D_S__T_H_A_T__ I_’_M__T_Y_P_I_N_G, YOU SIMPERING TWIT?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25041 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I quoted him directly, that quote is unchanged.
Paleohumans invented our fire technology, they already had the argument and it comes down to, "Fire good!" What's next, trying to reinvent the wheel?

Which is it, dipsquat?:

Are you so terminally stupid that you cannot differentiate the magnitudes of millions of camp fires burning biomass and biilions of people burning tankloads of gasoline, burning coal by the ton, etc.?

Or are you that desperately dishonest in your denial efforts?

Not rhetorical questions. Which is it. To you really wish flake the argument foe equivalency? Are you the typical denier; perfectly willing to appear functionally retarded if it's necessary to avoid conceding the most trivial point?

Hmmm? Stop ignoring my posts.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25042 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is untrue, natural carbon dioxide emission far outweigh's man's use of fossil fuel. Look at the yearly cycle in Keeling's atmospheric carbon dioxide graphs; it looks like Earth is breathing as she orbits the sun.

A LIE. You are being deliberately dishonest. You know damn well it is invalid to look at one half of an annual CYCLE and use it to dismiss the multi-year trend. What a scumbag. Here's the truth about Keeling's graph:

Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, taking readings at the South Pole and in Hawaii from 1958 onwards.[2]

Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability. Keeling had perfected the measurement techniques and observed "strong diurnal behavior with steady values of about 310 ppm in the afternoon" at three locations:(Big Sur near Monterey, the rain forests of Olympic Peninsula and high mountain forests in Arizona).[3] By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of carbon, Keeling attributed the diurnal change to respiration from local plants and soils, with afternoon values representative of the "free atmosphere". By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel". He also noted an apparent absence of any reduction due to absorption of CO2 by the oceans.[4]
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25043 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We can't know what the rates of emission are, because nobody measures whether you store or use the gas, oil and coal you buy.

Hillariously desparate ploy, douchebag. Are you really suggesting that the science is uncertain because it's just possible that 99% of all fossil fuels produced are being horded and never used?! What a monumental efftard you are.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25044 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> We can't measure Earth's geological CO2 emissions because more than three quarters of the Earth is under the oceans.
We can't know because we don't have the data; ..

A LIE. The FACT that the isotopic signatures are different has been presented to you repeatedly. Besides, are you seriously suggesting that not only may 99% of fossil fuel production be horded, but also that ocean floor volcanism/venting may well be 100X the best scientifically derived numbers?

This behavior of yours is called confirmation bias - or it would be if you really believed it. you;ve just made it crystal clear that you're a prevaricating bag of excrement. Which Koch-funded "think tank" pays you to post all day?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25045 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Kyle wrote:

"Who gives a flying eff that a denier moron like yourself thinks they need to act seperately to disentangle their effects."

I think its a good idea to see experimental data before blah, blah, blah (insert variation on same old tired, totally discredited BS claim made a thousand times)

You evaded your clear implosion, jackass. You clearly and repeatedly claimed that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 must be shown experimentally to have the same physical effects as other CO2. You know damn well that they have the same effect. you all so know that the former is 100X as much as the latter, yet you DISHONESTLY argued that it has yet to be demonstrated that the warming isn't being caused by the 1%. You know, the 15 that does the same thing as the 99%.

COULD YOU BE ANY MORE TRANSPARENTLY DECEPTIVE?!

I accept your concession on this argument because there is no way you can feign severe enough mental disability to continue to make it.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25046 Apr 9, 2013
You actually replied to this one, but YOUR REPLY WAS TRANSPARENTLY NON-RESPONSIVE:

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

Please support your imbecilic interpretation that for science to be valid it must disentangle the identical molecules representing 1% of the total from the other 99%.

Perhaps an analogy will kick-start your remaining neuron:

A biology experiment is undertaken to determine the salinity tolerance of a bacteria. The bacteria flourished with a low level of salt in the aqueous solution. The salt was from a mine near Cleveland and processed to be pure NaCl.

Then, the salinity is increased by a factor of 100, using salt from a mine near Kansas City, similarly refined. The bacteria die. The researchers conclude that its salinity tolerance is <100 times the original level.

Your insane assertion is that the experiment is bad science because the original salt was still present so the effect couldn't be reliably linked to the addded salt.

Defend your insanity or concede.

----------

You neither defended it or conceded it. You just spouted non sequiturs and repeated your BS like an autistic parrot.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25047 Apr 9, 2013
Here's a Lyin' Brian comment so breathtakingly inane that it is self-refuting:

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

Please support your imbecilic interpretation that for science to be valid it must disentangle the identical molecules representing 1% of the total from the other 99%.

Perhaps an analogy will kick-start your remaining neuron:

A biology experiment is undertaken to determine the salinity tolerance of a bacteria. The bacteria flourished with a low level of salt in the aqueous solution. The salt was from a mine near Cleveland and processed to be pure NaCl.

Then, the salinity is increased by a factor of 100, using salt from a mine near Kansas City, similarly refined. The bacteria die. The researchers conclude that its salinity tolerance is <100 times the original level.

Your insane assertion is that the experiment is bad science because the original salt was still present so the effect couldn't be reliably linked to the addded salt.

Defend your insanity or concede.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25048 Apr 9, 2013
Yo! Lyin' Brian! Here's an example of what RATIONAL and HONEST debaters do. You said that I needed to prove something. Actually, I really didn't have to because science has. But since you deny science, I did anyway.

----------

Kyle wrote:
Wrong. Assuming that you don't know that you're wrong, your ignorance is not an argument that sways rational people. Thousands of PHD's studying the matter and my own deep dive agree that you are wrong. And you admittedly don't know science from Shinola. I've explained why you're wrong. You ignored it. That makes you a denier. You lose.

You haven't explained how fossil carbon differs from the vast amounts of carbon released by geological activity. When carbon burns in a volcano or in a car, how can you tell the difference?

----------

As a RATIONAL and HONEST debater, I explained how your excuse for denial was invalid.

As an IRRATIONAL or DISHONEST debater, you never acknowledged that your excuse for denial had been refuted.

That's a concession in the eyes of any RATIONAL and HONEST person. One of many that you've made. However, you'll never admit to any of them - because YOU'RE IRRATIONAL A_N_D DISHONEST.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#25049 Apr 9, 2013
From the thread, "Once slow-moving threat, global warming leaves little...."

Or what I like to call "Brain_G gets hoisted by his own petard".

Brian_G wrote:
Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling; the well known ice age climate scenario.
We've always adapted to climate change. Don't panic.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute, Brain!

I thought you said climate change mitigation was a hoax. In fact, you've said it a thousand times.

So what is this? "Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps mitigate climate change against global cooling...."

With that logic, and a few of your own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25050 Apr 9, 2013
Here's a good example of Lyin' Brian being a transparent science denier. He employes the usual science denier arguments, lifted, no doubt, from a creationist website.

But like most questions he's been asked, Lyin' Brian refused to answer if he was a creatard, too.:

----------

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:

"The proof is in scientific journals, where deliberate deception is virtually impossible..."
We accept your concession. How else would a rational person interpret your latest evasive, steaming heap of nonsense?

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Science hoaxes:

No. 1- Piltdown Man
No. 2- Archaeoraptor
No. 3 - El Chupacabra
No. 4 - Rabbit Mother
No. 5 - The Fiji Mermaid
No. 6 - The Turk
No. 7 - Alien Autopsy
No. 8 - Say No to Cake
No. 9 - Disappearing Blonde Gene
No. 10 - The Nacirema Tribe

No. 1 - Thanks for providing the evidence that, besides being ancient, it was self-correcting, peer-reviewed SCIENCE that corrected this - "40 years later scientists proved that the Piltdown man was a deliberate attempt at paleontological fraud." - NOT admittedly scientifically illiterate wingnuts such as yourself.

No. 2 - Ditto #1 - "Turns out this "fossil" found in China was actually a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species."

Nos. 3-9 - Not science at all! Just urban legends and other crap from mass media, you simpleton!

No. 10 - Well, at least this one was actually published science, but again - WHO DO YOU THINK CORRECTED IT, KNOW-NOTHINGS LIKE YOU?

If these are your arguments for science denial, I accept your concession. Because that's exactly what it is whether or not you admit it.

Your penchant for repeating tired, failed, anti-science arguments reeks of the work of a denier that knows they're wrong and is denying with deceptive intent, rather than as a result of being deceived.

----------

And of course, Lyin' Brian failed to acknowledge that he's been nailed and refuted.

That's what deniers do.

That's what Lyin' Brian is paid to do.

The fact that he's done it more times than you can count is just one of many clues to the fact that the deniers don't have any valid arguments. If they did, why would they try to drown the gullible in BS ones?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25052 Apr 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
...Brian_G wrote: Using fossil fuel helps free ancient carbon back into the atmosphere where it can do some good. Freeing carbon dioxide into the air helps MITIGATE climate change against global cooling; ...

... With that logic, and a few of [Lyin' Brian's] own words, we say, "Removing carbon dioxide from the air helps mitigate climate change against global warming."

Care to dispute that?
LOL! I sure don't!

Thanks for that. What a buffoon that Lyin' Brian is. Anyone who follows a thread with a tenacious denier like him can't help but conclude, not only that science denial IS denial, but that the tenacious deniers are the most transparent liars on the planet. i thought creationists were by far the most intellectually dishonest, but Lyin' Brian (who may be a creatard, too; he's refused to answer) is even more dishonest than any creatard I've ever encountered.

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#25053 Apr 9, 2013
Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.

As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.

Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.

Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25054 Apr 9, 2013
So, Lyin' Brian, though you're far too dishonest to ever admit it, I've presented the science that refutes every BS (and often hilarious) excuse you've proffered for denying that excess GHG's are man's doing. You've been evasive and grossly dishonest and generally conceded in every dishonest fashion imaginable, so i accept that concession.

Now, let me explain for the rational people some rather simple facts that prove that it's impossible for the warming to be caused by anything other than the GHE:

First, an analogy. If you turn up the fire in an oven, the inside of the oven gets warmer. So does the outside. This is analogous to global warming induced by orbital mechanics or solar cycles. Deniers love to toss out these things; anything but GHG's as the actual cause of GW. You know, the "I'm smarter than a million PHD's" syndrome, explainable only by the Dunning-Krueger Effect. Well here's super-simple evidence that any moron can understand that refutes all such claims.

If you increase the insulation around your oven, the inside also gets warmer, but the outside gets cooler. This is analogous to GW induced by the GHE. We have been measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere from satellites with exquisite precision for many years, using instruments that are based upon fundamental physical principles that make them self-diagnostic. In other words, their output is as close to metaphysically correct as anything in science. What do they show?

The upper atmosphere is cooling. QED.

If that's not enough for you, consider that the upper atmosphere contracts when it cools far more than the dense lower atmosphere expands as it warms. Thus the limits of the atmosphere have contracted closer to the Earth - a LOT. Easily measurable. In fact, it's been taken into account when predicting the decay of satellite orbits.

Just for overkill that only Lyin' Brian would DENY, here's three more simple ways that we know the warming is caused by the GHE:

Climate science (and the common sense stemming from the basic intuitive physics of a moderately intelligent child) tells us that GHE warming would be greater at night, in the winter, and near the poles.

Al three are in evidence in spades. The fractions of a degree of globalized anomalies make it easier for denier scum and dumb people to dismiss the science. However, temps near the poles in mid-winter (whihc is also middle of the night when above the Arctic circle) are many degrees warmer. I read recently that such a temperature from an island weather station shows a 10.7degF increase.

So, Lyin' Brian, how are you going to DENY the logic above? how are you going to DENY 10+ degree changes?

Hmmm?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#25055 Apr 9, 2013
Denier b_gone in #25053: "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air."

This is absolutely wrong ... This evidence informs the world of the craziness of b_gone.

WHOA .. "Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air." [b_gone]
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#25056 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Kyle, of course one CO2 molecule behaves like any other; I dispute attributing 100% of the CO2 increase to man, not the effect of a man made vs a naturally emitted molecule of CO2.
As the oceans warm, they emit CO2 like a soda can going flat as it warms. Oceans, mountains and latitude cause climate, not man.
Some of the dissolved oceanic carbon is from the same fossil sources as fossil fuel. Our Earth constantly settles as carbon and oxygen float up out of denser elements into the air.
Don't panic, without CO2, life as we know it would be impossible.
But Lyin' Brian, you're forgetting a couple of things. First, you've evaded all demands that you elaborate on your BS demands because you're not a scientist, yet you're once again making scientific claims that are not supported (and are dead wrong). So, concede immediately or support with science that the oceans are emitting more CO2 from a ~.1% increase in absolute temperature than they're absorbing from the 40+% increase in atmospheric partial pressure of CO2. You forgot that I'm an engineer, didn't you? I not only know that the science is 180 degrees from your assertion, I KNOW EXACTLY WHY IT MUST BE.

Second, I accept your concession that the oceans are warming. Don't you dare DENY it at a later time.

As for the last line - utterly RETARDED and you know it, but you have nothing else. You can't live without water either, so I recommend that you be immersed in it - permanently.

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.

Grand Portage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sick hillary 7 hr LIbEralS 11
News Fmr. Prior Lake Youth Pastor Charged With Havin... 18 hr Knock off purse s... 16
News Ramsey County / Meth dealer's motives in sting ... (Aug '08) Sat Lynnhollenbeck 13
Hillary will lose! "EmailGate" NOT WORTHY TO BE... Sat cantmakeitup 5
Don't vote for Hillary! Sat cantmakeitup 7
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Fri LIbEralS 548
News Father Of Fatally Shot 2-Year-Old Arrested Sep 23 LIbEralS 32

Grand Portage Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Portage Mortgages