Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 34475 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.

Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#23608 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
"Ordinarily people live and learn"

We see you Slewsie.

We value your life, especially on Topix.

Please call me a drunk so that you can have real value as a poster.

Everybody love you Slewsie. You have so much to give mankind.

(By the way, I had to cut paste your quote. YOU are the ultimate manifestation of "Lifelong Learning")
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23609 Feb 4, 2013
The moron spammer strikes !! LMAOROTFU!

YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#23610 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
The moron spammer strikes !! LMAOROTFU!
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
Credibility

The quality of being believable or worthy of trust:

After all those lies, her credibility was at a low ebb.

"The moron spammer strikes !! LMAOROTFU!"
PHD

Overton, TX

#23612 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
The dead admits its dead and still posting. Will the dead ever learn and live again?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#23613 Feb 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" allegedly threatened AGW advocates so they would no longer post on toxic topix AGW forum threads.
litesong's accusation above is untrue. I support freedom of speech, mob violence is wrong. If advocacy about climate change mitigation results in backlash and scapegoating, at least I warned you. Demagogic mob action is mostly terrible, I support free speech, not mob action.

The media and social climate can be mitigated and controled. There's no experimental evidence global climate can be changed even the smallest measurable degree. Do you see the difference?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23614 Feb 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> I support free speech, not mob action.
Huh? Well good.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
The media and social climate can be mitigated and controled.
Er. Sounds like you're contradicting yourself here. Did I miss something in the middle... I admit I appear to butting in the middle of some old fight here...
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no experimental evidence global climate can be changed even the smallest measurable degree. Do you see the difference?
Well 97% of the top scientists, virtually 100% of the world renown science organizations (with the petroleum based science organizations on neutral) around the world; and 100% of the mainstream science media **strongly** disagrees with you. And they have lots of proof of that.

Meaning... got any evidence other than quoting some Rush Limbaugh type?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#23615 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
The oceans have absorbed about 80% of the increase in CO2, from the articles I have read.
The Earth is in balance, we are the fulcrum. If they didn't measure it, you wouldn't know it.

What do you want to do about it?

.
Wallop10 wrote:
Scientists do worry the oceans will saturate and let CO2 off the way you describe. That puts it back in the atmosphere and warms up the Earth.
No, you worry the oceans will saturate, even Fair Game's experts say the oceans still absorb CO2, although more slowly.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
Well the top scientists are telling us we need not to put the trash up in the atmosphere to begin with. What is your solution???
None of this changes the facts, as liquids (like the oceans) warm, more gas comes out of solution and as a liquid cools, it can absorb more gas. That's why you can rinse suds out with cold water faster than with hot water.

If you consider carbon dioxide to be trash, leave our oceans alone, you don't know what's up. CO2 is a gas, we don't put it, we free it into the atmosphere, where it used to live. CO2 isn't trashy, it's the breath of life. The atmosphere is the perfect place, a perfect fit.

If you love plants, don't hate carbon dioxide.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23616 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 again factually incorrect. The scientific science fiction you post does say opinion, forecast, could be and prediction. See the wallop10 gets walloped again and again. So do you have any evidence besides cut and paste scientific science fiction useless babble?
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23617 Feb 4, 2013
While you call posters dead, misspell, and write crazy... Thanks for picking your side, the crazier are clearly.."right".

YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23618 Feb 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Earth is in balance, we are the fulcrum. If they didn't measure it, you wouldn't know it.
What do you want to do about it?
.
<quoted text>No, you worry the oceans will saturate, even Fair Game's experts say the oceans still absorb CO2, although more slowly.
.
<quoted text>None of this changes the facts, as liquids (like the oceans) warm, more gas comes out of solution and as a liquid cools, it can absorb more gas. That's why you can rinse suds out with cold water faster than with hot water.
If you consider carbon dioxide to be trash, leave our oceans alone, you don't know what's up. CO2 is a gas, we don't put it, we free it into the atmosphere, where it used to live. CO2 isn't trashy, it's the breath of life. The atmosphere is the perfect place, a perfect fit.
If you love plants, don't hate carbon dioxide.
Yes, the carbon we are adding to the atmosphere has been here all along. It was incorporated into plants & bacteria hundreds of millions of years ago. It used to live in the atmosphere.

Yes, CO2 was much higher in the atmosphere in the past, & it was much warmer on the earth in the past. These things are utterly beside the point, however.

Our culture, our agriculture & our infrastructure have developed during, & are adapted to, Holocene conditions, NOT Jurassic conditions. What was perfect for the dinosaurs is way, way too high for us.

Can we survive with much higher temps? Yes, some of us. But under Jurassic conditions, sea level would be ~75 meters higher. Central continents would dry out, so agriculturally suitable locations would be rarer & very different than they are now.

People might want to move north, especially to places like the northern third of Siberia - OOPS!!! The northern third of Siberia will be under water.

There is a 100.00000% chance this will happen if we keep emitting CO2 without restriction. It may take a few centuries, but it is guaranteed to happen.

We are doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Prudence alone should suggest decreasing carbon emissions, even if it's only an insurance policy against what MIGHT happen.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23619 Feb 4, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
While you call posters dead, misspell, and write crazy... Thanks for picking your side, the crazier are clearly.."right".
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
The dead admits its dead and still posting. Will the dead ever learn and live again? Almost maybe, but your there already.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23621 Feb 4, 2013
While you call posters dead, misspell, and write crazy... Thanks for picking your side, the crazier are clearly.."right".
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm "postiong" dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#23622 Feb 4, 2013
You people are dumb.

Necessity is one of biggest contributor to innovation.

By the time earths resources are dried up.

We will be forced to look for alternative resources.

There's infinite amount of planets and solar systems.

We will just find a new way.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#23623 Feb 4, 2013
Greed will cause shortages
Greed will supply innovations

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23624 Feb 4, 2013
redeemer wrote:
You people are dumb.
Necessity is one of biggest contributor to innovation.
By the time earths resources are dried up.
We will be forced to look for alternative resources.
There's infinite amount of planets and solar systems.
We will just find a new way.
Yes, but the nearest new resources are mostly in the asteroid belt, & at this point, they're out of reach. We can't even mine the Helium-3 on the Moon. If we could, we'd have a much better chance of developing controlled fusion, with nearly unlimited energy.

At present, we're ceding this potential industry to the Chinese & Indians. Very, very foolish.

Interstellar travel is still far, far out of reach. If we mess up this planet, it will also dramatically reduce our capacity to explore our solar system for new resources, & make exploring other star systems nearly impossible.
redeemer

Minneapolis, MN

#23626 Feb 4, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the nearest new resources are mostly in the asteroid belt, & at this point, they're out of reach. We can't even mine the Helium-3 on the Moon. If we could, we'd have a much better chance of developing controlled fusion, with nearly unlimited energy.
At present, we're ceding this potential industry to the Chinese & Indians. Very, very foolish.
Interstellar travel is still far, far out of reach. If we mess up this planet, it will also dramatically reduce our capacity to explore our solar system for new resources, & make exploring other star systems nearly impossible.
There's a few billionaires that are starting a company to start mining asteroids. They have a fleet or have designs for a fleet.

Ill look for the link but its starting already.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23627 Feb 4, 2013
redeemer wrote:
Greed will cause shortages
Greed will supply innovations
Perhaps. But before it does that, greed may also destroy this world, making it much more difficult to innovate & explore for new resources.

We are doing a very, very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. Prudence alone would dictate decreasing carbon emissions, even if it's only an insurance policy against what MIGHT happen.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23629 Feb 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Earth is in balance, we are the fulcrum. If they didn't measure it, you wouldn't know it.
What do you want to do about it?

Actually they would know something is up because of the large number of sick and even dying coral reefs.
Here is the BBC.

'Alarming' plight of coral reefs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7498502.stm

A third of the world's reef-building coral species are facing extinction.

That is the stark conclusion from the first global study to assess the extinction risks of corals.
Writing in the journal Science, researchers say climate change, coastal development, overfishing, and pollution are the major threats.

"But ocean acidification is a much more insidious thing. We don't know how bad it will be, but the evidence suggests it will be absolutely devastating, perhaps on the order of decades, perhaps on the order of years."

Ever hear we have a mercury problem in our fish? USGS traced it to our coal plants.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]<qu oted text>
No, you worry the oceans will saturate, even Fair Game's experts say the oceans still absorb CO2, although more slowly.

Actually what I have read is that climatologists do not agree on this point -- don't really know for sure.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]<qu oted text>
<quoted text>None of this changes the facts, as liquids (like the oceans) warm, more gas comes out of solution and as a liquid cools, it can absorb more gas. That's why you can rinse suds out with cold water faster than with hot water.
ARGO measurements show the ocean is definitely warming
Now their probes only go down to about 2 kilometers. Maybe the vast ody of ocean underneath is not warming. But it would not be cooling either.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
If you consider carbon dioxide to be trash, leave our oceans alone, you don't know what's up. CO2 is a gas, we don't put it, we free it into the atmosphere, where it used to live. CO2 isn't trashy, it's the breath of life. The atmosphere is the perfect place, a perfect fit.
Taken out of context.

Let me help you. With NO CO2, the Earth would be an icebox because it would be roughly 60 degrees F cooler. With NO CO2 there would be no plant life.

Ever hear of the children's story Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
I like being warm -- but not too hot; I also like cool, but not too cold.

It's best to be in the middle -- JUST RIGHT.

So, I like warm -- but too much would kill me. I like cool -- but too much would kill me too.

The connotation I meant was by sending up **too much CO2 ** we are trashing the planet, because too much will destroy civilization as we know it.

Our children deserve better than that. We are terrible stewards for their future. And they are going to figure that out when it happens in all its cruelty.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23630 Feb 4, 2013
redeemer wrote:
You people are dumb.
Necessity is one of biggest contributor to innovation.
By the time earths resources are dried up.
We will be forced to look for alternative resources.
There's infinite amount of planets and solar systems.
We will just find a new way.
Er, have you checked out the time it takes just to get to Mars?

The total journey time from Earth to Mars takes between 150-300 days depending on the speed of the launch, the alignment of Earth and Mars, and the length of the journey the spacecraft takes to reach its target

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14841/how-long-d...

It grows exponentially after that.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23631 Feb 4, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, have you checked out the time it takes just to get to Mars?
The total journey time from Earth to Mars takes between 150-300 days depending on the speed of the launch, the alignment of Earth and Mars, and the length of the journey the spacecraft takes to reach its target
..
It grows exponentially after that.
Actually, no, it does not because there are no means to transport humans to Mars, deliver them alive, have supplies or habitat to stay there, and to bring them back after the visit.

So instead of present tense, one must use imaginary tense with "would."

It's like He-3 fusion tale. Not possible.

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.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans' worst nightmare Trump 50 min Phineas 35
clinton probe extends to key aides 57 min Phineas 51
dow -400 1 hr Little Boy Blows 8
News Fast food-style Middle Eastern lands in downtow... 1 hr cowboy chris 14
News Bernie Sanders' Secret Weapon 1 hr cowboy chris 3
Trump Mobile, AL Rally Outstanding 4 hr TOASTER 5
Obama word games 5 hr Little Boy Blue 15
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages