Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Full story: TwinCities.com

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.
Comments
23,081 - 23,100 of 32,326 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24353
Mar 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Actually ....NO !!!

Overall, winters have warmed about two to four degrees in the past 30 years or so. One good way to measure it is to look at these number of subzero lows that we're seeing at night. There are distinct trends that are emerging in the past 30 to 40 years toward fewer subzero low temperatures in Minnesota and the Twin Cities.

Quick example: this year we've had five days so far, last year we had three. That's a very low number. If you go back to the 1970s - the whole decade - we had 444 subzero days. During the 1980s we had 280, during the 1990s we had 256; down to 198 in the 2000s. That's a 57% drop in those subzero nights. If you look at that overall the trend lines show we could be down to around 10 on average per winter. We used to average about 30 back in the '70s and we could be maybe closer to zero by 2040. By 2040, in the Twin Cities we could be very close to few or any subzero nights if our current climate trends continue.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24354
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Ignoring (as one should) your endless conflations of politics and economics with the science, your entire comment consists of only one thing:

A bare assertion that the science is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between spouting an unsupported opinion and constructing an argument? Any clue at all?

Can you - right now - post anything that would be persuasive to a rational, informed reader? By that, I don't mean a colorful string of insults and characterizations. To rational people, it goes without saying that it must contain verifiable facts, a
logical argument based upon them, some indication of sources so that the science can be verified, and an explanation of how the evidence to the contrary is refuted.

May we expect instead the usual content-free bare assertions, accusations, insults, and other de facto concessions?
Why?

No amount of scientific facts will persuade a Liberal of his ideology!

When people become attached to a movement, a person or whatever on the basis of faith, you got problems trying to separate 'em, because faith is what? Faith is loyalty. It is support of the unknown or something that cannot be proved. It can't be proven, it can't be disproven, as far as the faithful are concerned. Obama has a bunch of faithful, and so does the manmade global warming hoax. I have a piece of information here -- you may have seen it already today -- that totally discounts it all in my mind just in terms of common sense. Let me give you the data. "In the last year, we have seen the largest one-year temperature change ever recorded for global temperatures. However, it's been a cooling trend, not warming. Record snows and cold are being reported from all over the northern hemisphere this winter." It seems like our unbiased media should have been covering this important story. If you search Google News for articles in the last month containing the phrase "global warming," you get 29,000 hits. If you do the same for "global cooling," you'll get 100 hits. One hundred cooling hits versus 29,000 warming hits. We could be sliding into a new ice age and the Drive-By Media would be crying hysterically about global warming. "Okay, Rush, prove it, prove it." Fine. I got it right here.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24355
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Ignoring (as one should) your endless conflations of politics and economics with the science, your entire comment consists of only one thing:

A bare assertion that the science is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between spouting an unsupported opinion and constructing an argument? Any clue at all?

Can you - right now - post anything that would be persuasive to a rational, informed reader? By that, I don't mean a colorful string of insults and characterizations. To rational people, it goes without saying that it must contain verifiable facts, a
logical argument based upon them, some indication of sources so that the science can be verified, and an explanation of how the evidence to the contrary is refuted.

May we expect instead the usual content-free bare assertions, accusations, insults, and other de facto concessions?
This is from the DailyTech.com . It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped big-time. Does this mean that Algore is out of a job? Does it mean that they should rescind his Nobel Peace Prize? Will Algore just jump on the cold bandwagon, or do something more fun? World temperatures, according to the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, is the chart that is exhibited here -- we'll put this up at RushLimbaugh.com so you can see it -- and you can see the sharp drop over the last year. It is a huge drop. As we reported yesterday, more snow and ice cover the northern hemisphere than at any time since 1966. The 12-month-long drop -- now, get this, because this is crucial -- the drop in global temperatures this past year has wiped out one century of warming. We went up one degree Celsius, we think, in 100 years, in one century. In one year, it's been wiped out.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24356
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Ignoring (as one should) your endless conflations of politics and economics with the science, your entire comment consists of only one thing:

A bare assertion that the science is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between spouting an unsupported opinion and constructing an argument? Any clue at all?

Can you - right now - post anything that would be persuasive to a rational, informed reader? By that, I don't mean a colorful string of insults and characterizations. To rational people, it goes without saying that it must contain verifiable facts, a
logical argument based upon them, some indication of sources so that the science can be verified, and an explanation of how the evidence to the contrary is refuted.

May we expect instead the usual content-free bare assertions, accusations, insults, and other de facto concessions?
"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously," a degree in one year, ladies and gentlemen. And, you know what? Scientists such as Drew Thornley, he's a policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom and the Center for Natural Resources, and a new Planet Gore contributor chimes in on the inconvenient truth of global cooling.

New data from these four major global temperature tracking outlets show that world temperatures last year dropped .75 degrees Celsius, large enough to wipe out virtually an entire century of warming. "Multiple researchers have linked global temperatures to levels of solar activity. This all may be due to a changing solar cycle," as we have attempted to explain on this program; as we have gone into great depth on global warming just as we have gone into great depth on the policies of Mrs. Clinton and on her incompetence. This is profound. I have yet to see this in the Drive-By Media. If it ever does appear in the Drive-By Media, it will be portrayed as kooks, extremists, or harping on one year's data. And of course the global warming manmade hoaxers will come out and say, "Of course, we have said all along that we're going to have these drastic impulses and cycles. This could mean that next year we could gain a full temperature in one year, which is why we have to continue to do what we're doing." So despite the fact that the anecdotal evidence has been matched up with true scientific evidence, the faithful who buy into this hoax will not be separated from their faithful belief based on this because they have too much invested in their own feeling of mattering and relevance and contributing and so forth.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24357
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Ignoring (as one should) your endless conflations of politics and economics with the science, your entire comment consists of only one thing:

A bare assertion that the science is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between spouting an unsupported opinion and constructing an argument? Any clue at all?

Can you - right now - post anything that would be persuasive to a rational, informed reader? By that, I don't mean a colorful string of insults and characterizations. To rational people, it goes without saying that it must contain verifiable facts, a
logical argument based upon them, some indication of sources so that the science can be verified, and an explanation of how the evidence to the contrary is refuted.

May we expect instead the usual content-free bare assertions, accusations, insults, and other de facto concessions?
So they'll come up with all kinds of excuses. "Well, may be true for one year, but we can't afford to just forget this. We can't afford to stop our carbon footprint limiting," and, folks, once again, this is one of the, I have to say, brilliant tactics of the left. I will go so far as to say that belief in liberalism has to be faith because the evidence is it fails; the evidence is it doesn't work. The evidence is abundant, either in the number of deaths, the number of genocides, the number of starvations, the lack of economic opportunity and prosperity. Communism is a disaster, and yet there are faithful communists, faithful socialists, faithful liberals who still think, with the right people in charge, it can succeed. So when you see the Soviet Union crumble, when you see the way people live in Cuba -- look at how these people talk about Cuba -- best health care system in the world. This is where we're headed with Obama. This is what we have here. This is what Mrs. Clinton could never create, is faith in herself. Obama has done it. "Well, what about conservatism?" Conservatism doesn't require this. Conservatives already have their faith, in God.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24358
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>Ignoring (as one should) your endless conflations of politics and economics with the science, your entire comment consists of only one thing:

A bare assertion that the science is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between spouting an unsupported opinion and constructing an argument? Any clue at all?

Can you - right now - post anything that would be persuasive to a rational, informed reader? By that, I don't mean a colorful string of insults and characterizations. To rational people, it goes without saying that it must contain verifiable facts, a
logical argument based upon them, some indication of sources so that the science can be verified, and an explanation of how the evidence to the contrary is refuted.

May we expect instead the usual content-free bare assertions, accusations, insults, and other de facto concessions?
When people accept any idea by faith, no amour of faces will persuade them!

Faith is loyalty!

You will never give up your loyalty to the socialist Global Warming alarming!

Even if the facts hit your face!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24359
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>HSL refuted your nonsense already, but allow me to do so again on completely separate grounds:

If your denier pseudoscientist were correct that it's warming because a weakening magnetic field is admitting additional radiant energy from the sun, warming would be greatest near the equator, during the summer, and in daytime.

The FACTS are unequivocal. The warming is greatest near the poles, during the winter, and at night. In fact, there are monitoring stations in the high Arctic that have shown an 11degF warming in midwinter.(Winter also = night at those latitudes)

These observations are only expected if the greenhouse effect is the cause. The same is true regarding the cooling of the upper atmosphere, which has been measured with exquisite accuracy since solid state sensors have been in orbit.

These conclusions are trivially easy to understand. If you turn up the flame in your oven, the outside of the oven will get warmer. If you instead increase the temperature of the oven by adding insulation, the outside will be cooler. If you heat the whole house with one fireplace, stoking the fire raises the temperature the most in the room with the fireplace. If you insulate the house, the temperature will increase the most in the rooms furthest from the fireplace.

You've been refutedin multiple ways, including one that is intuitive and requires no math. A rational person would study your source and the sources that contradict it and then arrive at the only rational conclusion - You were being lied to.

My money is on you standing by this thoroughly discredited lie because deniers never react rationally to refutations and never admit error on even the most trivial points. In fact, that behavior is clinical evidence for the denier personality type.

Am I right? Hmmm?
You are wrong because you will use any Liberal site over any scientific fact site.

This is yore logic:

If a scientific fact is rejected by a Liberal group then you choose that group!

For you, the fact that a Liberal site disproves a valid scientific fact is enough for you!

If a GW fact is disproved by scientists you will ignore that but if scientific data is attacked by a bunch of pseudo-science Liberals then you agree with them.

What you believe to be objective reasoning is simply picking the Liberal sites over any Conservative factual science!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24360
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>Jose-

I am a capitalist, not a socialist. I do not agree with "liberals" (& certainly not with Obama) all the time, either.
I do NOT want to raise taxes on everyone.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax does NOT raise taxes overall.
Yes, Rmoney would have been a TERRIBLE choice for president, virtually guaranteeing an imminent depression.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with AGW/CC is indeed wrong because its basics have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Anyone who can't see that is indeed psychotically detached from reality, just like you.
31,478 scientists disagree with you, 9,029 have PhD's, do you?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24361
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Will Not fly on a 787 wrote:
It's running 50 degrees colder this year than last.

GLOBAL WARMING????????
I have two feet of Global Warming on my driveway that I must shovel!

http://www.real-science.com/two-feet-of-globa...

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24362
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Bushwhacker wrote:
Actually ....NO !!!

Overall, winters have warmed about two to four degrees in the past 30 years or so. One good way to measure it is to look at these number of subzero lows that we're seeing at night. There are distinct trends that are emerging in the past 30 to 40 years toward fewer subzero low temperatures in Minnesota and the Twin Cities.

Quick example: this year we've had five days so far, last year we had three. That's a very low number. If you go back to the 1970s - the whole decade - we had 444 subzero days. During the 1980s we had 280, during the 1990s we had 256; down to 198 in the 2000s. That's a 57% drop in those subzero nights. If you look at that overall the trend lines show we could be down to around 10 on average per winter. We used to average about 30 back in the '70s and we could be maybe closer to zero by 2040. By 2040, in the Twin Cities we could be very close to few or any subzero nights if our current climate trends continue.
Where's my Global Warming dude? By Global Freeze

The debate is “over” and the science is “settled”, but someone forgot to tell Mother Nature

http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24363
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation. I'll wait.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24364
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
31,478 scientists disagree with you, 9,029 have PhD's, do you?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
You idi0t, the "petition project" has long since been refuted. Even Wiki can tell you that - or you can go to Skeptical Science for a more rigorous explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition...

Yes, I have a doctorate degree, & considerable training thereafter.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24365
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Brian_G wrote:
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation. I'll wait.
Please convince ANYONE...you matter, spammer.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24366
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>Please convince ANYONE...you matter, spammer.
PERFECT reply ever.. to that poster who has spammed the world about 40,000 times over many years..

Thanks; I feel better.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24367
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Brian Goofball has been given answers, the irony is IT thrives on a feeling of superiority, when IT ignores more intelligence...

Common problem, for faux fools/religious nut-so types.
Will Not fly on a 787

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24368
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Al Gore is one ahppy camper.

He is now worth more than Mitt Romney. Al sold a TV network for $100,000,000.

I love it when SOCIALISTS have all the money AND YET pimp wealth redistribution!!!

Global Warming CROCK OF SHIT!!!

15 degrees below average with no relief in sight...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24369
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1




Overall, winters have warmed about two to four degrees in the past 30 years or so. One good way to measure it is to look at these number of subzero lows that we're seeing at night. There are distinct trends that are emerging in the past 30 to 40 years toward fewer subzero low temperatures in Minnesota and the Twin Cities.
Quick example: this year we've had five days so far, last year we had three. That's a very low number. If you go back to the 1970s - the whole decade - we had 444 subzero days. During the 1980s we had 280, during the 1990s we had 256; down to 198 in the 2000s. That's a 57% drop in those subzero nights. If you look at that overall the trend lines show we could be down to around 10 on average per winter. We used to average about 30 back in the '70s and we could be maybe closer to zero by 2040. By 2040, in the Twin Cities we could be very close to few or any subzero nights if our current climate trends continue.

Will Not fly on a 787

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24370
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

4

Al Gore is one happy camper.

He is now worth more than Mitt Romney. Al sold a TV network for $100,000,000.

I love it when SOCIALISTS have all the money AND YET pimp wealth redistribution!!!

Global Warming CROCK OF SHIT!!!

15 degrees below average with no relief in sight...
mc

Danielson, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24371
Mar 14, 2013
 
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24372
Mar 14, 2013
 

Judged:

16

16

16

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>PERFECT reply ever.. to that poster who has spammed the world about 40,000 times over many years..
Thanks; I feel better.
Yo, spacedoutblues would that be the same NASA that made the USA space hitchhikers??

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.

32 Users are viewing the Minneapolis Forum right now

Search the Minneapolis Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The 1% Should Pay Their Fair Share in Taxes 24 min cantmakeitup 15
Minneapolis man charged with murder in shooting 44 min cowboy chris 1
Muslims Saw Americans Head Off 1 hr LIbEralS 3
CISCO laying off to hire Illegals? 4 hr John gotti 3
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 5 hr BIG_STEVIE 26,226
Kluwe and Vikings settle out of court 5 hr Vikings are Sissies 2
Obamacare fades from GOP's 2014 campaign playbook 5 hr LIbEralS 3
•••
•••
•••
•••

Minneapolis Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••