Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35607 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.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24588 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, climate doesn't have a thermostat:
A thermostat is a component of a control system which senses the temperature of a system so that the system's temperature is maintained near a desired setpoint. The thermostat does this by switching heating or cooling devices on or off, or regulating the flow of a heat transfer fluid as needed, to maintain the correct temperature. The name is derived from the Greek words thermos "hot" and statos "a standing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermostat
Yes, climate DOES have a thermostat, & it's carbon dioxide. But don't take my word for it. I finally found the correct Richard Alley video:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lec...

CO2 does exactly what you say a thermostat should do. If you have an open mind, watch Alley's vid. He's a bit goofy & nerdy, but entertaining & informative.

Currently, humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere ~20,000 times faster than natural processes emit it. We are already seeing anthropogenic climate, & will see ever more of it in the future.

Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you try to say they're not.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#24589 Mar 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you try to say they're not.
It would be more correct to say that CO2 (and other GHGs) are the PRIMARY thermostat. Other factors can produce a smaller shift that may confuse some people trying to isolate the cause and effect.

The issue of the thermostat is one of insolation (incoming heat from the sun) which is fairly but not entirely constant, balanced against the necessary surface temperature to drive the SAME amount of thermal IR radiation to space. The barriers to this IR are GHGs which retard IR photons. On the incoming side, we have SMALL changes in the solar output, along with some effect from high altitude sulfate aerosols which can reflect some solar influx.

All else is 'shifting heat around' which is the CLIMATE response, not AGW. Of course, the primary problem of AGW is the climate response so we cannot lose sight of the fact that AGW will tamper with the climate in many ways, from floods and drought to record cold and warm spells. In fact, the primary effect of AGW will be to make it easier for record events to occur.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24590 Mar 21, 2013
Miss Piggy Chops wrote:
Coldest spring in 40 years in Minnesota, so much for "Global Warming", oh wait, they had to change it to "Climate Change", because it's so obviously BS!!!!!
Retarded denier argument #1 yet again! Denier BS never dies because deniers are immune to refutation and impressed with childishly fallacious arguments.
Kyle

Ligonier, IN

#24592 Mar 21, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
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.
I believe that it's Ellesmere Island that has warmed 10.7 degF in mid-winter. Such data are harder to deny than fractions. Too bad scientists don't have a megaphone to disperse such facts as efficiently as the denial movement disperses misinformation.

Sorry about that previous response. You didn't quote the comment to which you were responding and, you must admit, your comment reads just like some of the denier stuff.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#24593 Mar 21, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be more correct to say that CO2 (and other GHGs) are the PRIMARY thermostat. Other factors can produce a smaller shift that may confuse some people trying to isolate the cause and effect.
The issue of the thermostat is one of insolation (incoming heat from the sun) which is fairly but not entirely constant, balanced against the necessary surface temperature to drive the SAME amount of thermal IR radiation to space. The barriers to this IR are GHGs which retard IR photons. On the incoming side, we have SMALL changes in the solar output, along with some effect from high altitude sulfate aerosols which can reflect some solar influx.
All else is 'shifting heat around' which is the CLIMATE response, not AGW. Of course, the primary problem of AGW is the climate response so we cannot lose sight of the fact that AGW will tamper with the climate in many ways, from floods and drought to record cold and warm spells. In fact, the primary effect of AGW will be to make it easier for record events to occur.
Yes, of course. I was oversimplifying a bit because some here don't appear able to appreciate nuance or complexity. There are many factors that affect temperature besides CO2; it's just the main one.

Just the mechanism of radiative forcing appears beyond the grasp of some here. It's not the same as conduction, but some here can't understand that.("The cooler atmosphere CAN'T warm the earth! It violate the 2LOT!" Crazy.)

(2LOT = 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)
Jarrod D

Marietta, GA

#24594 Mar 21, 2013
None of you know what youre talking about. its not "global warming"
anyone considered the bible?
God said in the world's end time you will see signs in the weather.
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes" Matthew 24:7
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
The book of Matthew 24 is very good at explaing whats going on and soon to come, signs right in front of our eys. notice how crazy the weather is and recently? how can that be global warming? maybe that could be what's fulfilling these prophecies, even how the government is spraying the sky so much. wake up and see
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24595 Mar 21, 2013
Nobody...."its" ??? Yeah, the contraction challenged doofus has the "answer"???
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24596 Mar 22, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Nobody...."its" ??? Yeah, the contraction challenged doofus has the "answer"???
The commander clap trapper calling the kettle.You bush wacked your---self again.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24597 Mar 22, 2013
Nobody...."its" ??? Yeah, the contraction challenged doofus has the "answer"???
Who

Grand Rapids, MI

#24598 Mar 22, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>National Enquirer equivalent... Pretty sad, you didn't find that obvious.
Does it really matter?
Even if all the "climate change scientists" in the world told you idiots straight to your face GW is a hoax, the gloom and doomer imbeciles, like yourself, would still argue GW exists, liberal idiots like you would just find somebody else to say what you want to hear.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24599 Mar 22, 2013
So, you have no proof, we do and you're pretending we don't ??? Pretty funny !!!
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24600 Mar 23, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Nobody...."its" ??? Yeah, the contraction challenged doofus has the "answer"???
You answered it your---self. Bush whacked again and again. Now go to your corner and keep your clap trapper closed.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24601 Mar 23, 2013
Want proof climate change mitigation is a hoax?

Look at the experimental record.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24602 Mar 23, 2013
Jarrod D wrote:
None of you know what youre talking about. its not "global warming"
anyone considered the bible?
God said in the world's end time you will see signs in the weather.
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes" Matthew 24:7
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
The book of Matthew 24 is very good at explaing whats going on and soon to come, signs right in front of our eys. notice how crazy the weather is and recently? how can that be global warming? maybe that could be what's fulfilling these prophecies, even how the government is spraying the sky so much. wake up and see
How many times has this been quoted in history? Are you ready to sell everything and move to the mountains?

What is going on is that mankind is burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2. This is a known fact. It is also scientifically factual that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24603 Mar 23, 2013
Jarrod D wrote:
None of you know what youre talking about. its not "global warming"
anyone considered the bible?..... notice how crazy the weather is and recently? how can that be global warming? maybe that could be what's fulfilling these prophecies, even how the government is spraying the sky so much. wake up and see
Yet more evidence that dogmatic thinking of all stripes correlates with all others. Wingnut Jarrod shows the correlation between religion, climate science denial, and conspiracism. Tell us, Jarrod, are you perchance a creationist as well?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24604 Mar 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>The commander clap trapper calling the kettle.You bush wacked your---self again.
No science, no argument, yet still posting meaningless BS. You're a waste of flesh.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24605 Mar 23, 2013
Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it really matter?
Even if all the "climate change scientists" in the world told you idiots straight to your face GW is a hoax, the gloom and doomer imbeciles, like yourself, would still argue GW exists, liberal idiots like you would just find somebody else to say what you want to hear.
Why the scare quotes? Is that your substitute for supporting your insane denier position that all science is wrong, yet Exxon, Koch brothers and you are right? Scare quotes.(Face->palm)

Such transference! All of the scientists ARE telling you idiots to your face WITH PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE AND MATH that GW is happening and you imbeciles still argue (very poorly) that it's a hoax because you can always find someone (unqualified, financially interested, ignorant, and/or lying) who agrees with you.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24606 Mar 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You answered it your---self. Bush whacked again and again. Now go to your corner and keep your clap trapper closed.
No science, no argument, yet still spamming us with thought-free evidence of the thought-free nature of their position.

Thanks. You support the scientific position very well ..... in your own unique fashion.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24607 Mar 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Want proof climate change mitigation is a hoax?
Look at the experimental record.
WTF are you talking about?! What experiments? I ask you again, moron - What experiments would you support? If you fail to answer either question, your "argument" will be revealed as fundamentally illogical or fundamentally dishonest.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24608 Mar 23, 2013
What experiments have you got? Can you cite a compelling experiment for climate change mitigation?

Adapting to climate is well tested, you can sample umbrellas for protection from rain, nobody has mitigated climate change; there's the difference.

Architecture protects your home from climate; restricting greenhouse gas emissions does not. There is a difference between fact and fiction. Look at samples, tests, trial and experiments to tell which is which.

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
News Couple Charged In Fatal Shooting In North Minne... 14 min Drumpf 15
Obama & BLM mourn monstor Fidel Castro 13 hr Trump worst presi... 71
Child sex ring>Pizzagate>Clinton's>Obama's>FBI ... 14 hr Trump worst presi... 2
BLM urge rioting over OSU SHOOTING 15 hr Drumpf 36
California Dems Block Gang Member Database Tue TAAM 1
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) Dec 4 texas pete 628
Get Over It! Dec 3 Evil Roy Slade 10

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages