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
23,501 - 23,520 of 32,103 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24793
Mar 29, 2013
 
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24794
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
You are obviously determined to go to the grave a know-nothing.

Don't worry- you'll make it.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24795
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
You are truly insane. You quote science that unequivocally supports GW and just dismiss it with nothing more than an unjustified characterization. I think there might be one other possibility. If you're not batshite bonkers, you could be a rational acceptor of science attempting to discredit denial to the absolute maximum extent possible.
In which case, you're succeeding in spades. Keep up the good work.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24796
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>If you know a peer reviewed experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change, please post a citation. I'll wait.
Well, efftard, your wait is over. What dishonest denier claptrap will you employ to avoid learning anything, changing any of your dogmatic preconceptions, or engaging in anything remotely resembling a rational debate? Hmmm?
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24797
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

PHD2 wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain flaws in my logic.
That's a tall order, Post Hole Digger. Often because your posts contain no discernible logic at all, even of the fallacious variety. Always because you are incapable of and/or unwilling to grasp any explanations - ever.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24798
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> If the tax rate is greater than zero, it costs the taxpayer and the government, just to calculate, produce and collect the tax. I'm waiting for HSL's reply to my question, why not a 0% carbon tax like we have now? A zero percent tax is revenue neutral, takes no effort to prosecute the tax cheat and gives no incentives to the taxman. I'm for a revenue neutral carbon tax of 0%. Can we compromise on zero?
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>^^^...farmers need atmospheric CO2 to fertilize their plants and we need to emit CO2 or we die. CO2 isn't poison, carbon dioxide is vital to life.

<quoted text>^^^Here I assume, HSL believes his opinions reflect reality, that CO2 is poisonous at atmospheric levels and a nonzero carbon tax won't cost "the economy" anything, even though the economy is full of people who would be forced to pay more for energy and fuel.
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.
.
<quoted text>If you think I'll pay one penny to abandon New York, you're sadly mistaken. If some New Yorker decides to move inland, that's his lookout, not mine.
The government already has tax collectors for excise & other taxes. It already has computers to spit out checks or make e-deposits every month. A carbon tax would cost virtually nothing to collect & disburse. OK, MAYBE the government will only be able to disburse 99% of the moneys collected, so it'll "only" be 99% revenue-neutral. That's plenty close enough for most people.

Why not a zero carbon tax? Once AGAIN: we're ALREADY seeing increased droughts, floods, agricultural declines, storms & slight sea level rise. We'll see a LOT more of these in the future.

Droughts are expensive; a 30-40% agricultural collapse will be almost incalculably expensive. Heat waves, storms & cold snaps are expensive. Sea level rise will be almost incalculably expensive.

As it is now, you & all the other sociopathic, greedy, selfish, heavy carbon emitters aren't paying for these costs, you're foisting them off onto people in the future. It's like the national debt but WAY worse. You should PAY these costs NOW. So NO, we CANNOT "compromise on zero" now, because it's an incredibly evil thing you want to do.

Lots of things are necessary for life at one level but poisonous at a higher level, including oxygen & water. CO2 needs to be in the "Goldilocks zone"; it has to be "just right" for our civilization to continue as it has.

If you live long enough, you WILL pay more to prevent the inundation of New York. If you don't, your progeny will - & they'll despise your current attitudes. I hope it's worth it for a few shekels.

BTW, posters like Kyle, Fair Game & SpaceBlues have already simply CRUSHED your "arguments" - not that you'd notice it. You'll just keep repeating the same things you've said in the past.

So this is my repeated point: YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, so the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24799
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>Climate always changes, floods, droughts and extreme weather events define our climate. Don't panic.
.
If you think I'll pay one penny to abandon New York, you're sadly mistaken...... I hope New Yorkers can raise that $20,000,000,000,000 or they'll have to learn to swim.
There you have it - Brian's entire "argument" in a nutshell. Allow me to translate from denier-speak:

TRANS: "I have no scientific argument, so here's another lame repetition of the #1 retarded denier argument that has been refuted several times recently in this thread alone. Instead, here's my real argument and motivation - I want the freedom to not have to make any changes in my life, continue to avoid the external costs of my CO2 emissions, allowing others to be inordinately affected or even killed, while remaining in denial that I will be harmed at all. In other words, I'm both delusional and beyond selfish; I can't process the thought that I have to make changes for my own good and am perfectly willing to commit atrocities to avoid maintenance them."

Nice. You should be very proud.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24800
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is my repeated point: YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, so the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe, not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective. You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
BINGO! This point has been made so well and so many times, yet Brian is non-responsive and will forever be.

Refusal to acknowledge refutations IS a defacto concession. Brian HAS conceded. He's either too intellectually dishonest to do so explicitly (hypothesis #1), too irrational to process hos defeat (hypothesis #2), too well compensated to do so or go away (hypothesis #3), or some combo.

What percentage breakdown would you estimate applies?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24801
Mar 29, 2013
 
I asked for an "experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change" and Fair Game thinks this is it:
Fair Game wrote:
The experiment has been done and the results are in folks:...satellite[s] which recorded similar observations... "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect[ that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.]"...[URL deleted]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n68...

Not observations or experiments on "man made greenhouse gas emission", observations on atmospheric "atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12". There was no control for man made emissions, just observation of the effect of all greenhouse gas, from man made and natural sources combined.

Perhaps it was an experiment testing whether the satellites did what they were designed to do. I'm not going to buy the abstracts, what were the independent variables in this experiment?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24802
Mar 29, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is
"expected"
to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded
"similar"
observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with
"theoretical expectations".
Thus the paper found
"direct experimental evidence"
for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
Old scientific science fiction. Got more?
I can't tell what the independent variables were from the extract. I'll bet they were whether the satellites would function or break. It sure doesn't sound like any controlled and measured man made CO2 emission or capture was used.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24803
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
BINGO! Game is OVER. STOP posting.
I knew they wouldn't like my answer. Do you think their answer is any better?

Whoops, my bad. That assumes they ever answer the question.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24804
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
I asked for an "experiment that shows any man made greenhouse gas emission making even the smallest measurable climate change" and Fair Game thinks this is it:
<quoted text>
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n68...
Not observations or experiments on "man made greenhouse gas emission", observations on atmospheric "atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12". There was no control for man made emissions, just observation of the effect of all greenhouse gas, from man made and natural sources combined.
Perhaps it was an experiment testing whether the satellites did what they were designed to do. I'm not going to buy the abstracts, what were the independent variables in this experiment?
You're right of course, there was no control: we need to deduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if we observe the opposite effect.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24805
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Kyle wrote:
Well, efftard, your wait is over. What dishonest denier claptrap will you employ to avoid learning anything, changing any of your dogmatic preconceptions, or engaging in anything remotely resembling a rational debate? Hmmm?
I asked for an experiment on man made greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, or are you proposing we mitigate natural greenhouse gas too. We need that greenhouse gas to keep our planet habitable.

What do you think was the dependent variable in the experiment?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24806
Mar 29, 2013
 
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The government already has tax collectors for excise & other taxes. It already has computers to spit out checks or make e-deposits every month. A carbon tax would cost virtually nothing to collect & disburse.
Taxes cost the taxpayers and their customers plenty already.

If you think taxes cost nothing; you don't pay taxes.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
OK, MAYBE the government will only be able to disburse 99% of the moneys collected, so it'll "only" be 99% revenue-neutral. That's plenty close enough for most people.
1% corruption, or 10% or 30%? Better off with a zero carbon tax, that's 100% revenue neutral.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Why not a zero carbon tax? Once AGAIN: we're ALREADY seeing increased droughts, floods, agricultural declines, storms & slight sea level rise. We'll see a LOT more of these in the future.
Finally an answer; climate demagogy. If you don't have reason to convince people, use fear.

"[D}roughts, floods, agricultural declines, storms & slight sea level [changes]" have always happened; don't panic.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Droughts are expensive; a 30-40% agricultural collapse will be almost incalculably expensive. Heat waves, storms & cold snaps are expensive. Sea level rise will be almost incalculably expensive.
Of course droughts are expensive but if your politicians tell you we need a new tax to stop droughts; your problem isn't the atmospheric climate.

Irrigation, agricultural improvements, refrigeration, steam heating, and building rafts are well demonstrated adaptations to climate while nobody has ever published a peer reviewed test of mitigating droughts, heat waves, storms, cold snaps or sea level change.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
As it is now, you & all the other sociopathic, greedy, selfish, heavy carbon emitters aren't paying for these costs, you're foisting them off onto people in the future.
Show me the money, prove it. Those costs only exist in HSL's imagination. They are a justification for an energy and fuel tax.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
It's like the national debt but WAY worse.
No, we know who's responsible for the national debt and we pay the interest in hard cash. We know the EXACT cost of the national debt but have no idea of the 'cost' of man made CO2 emissions.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You should PAY these costs NOW. So NO, we CANNOT "compromise on zero" now, because it's an incredibly evil thing you want to do.
They call us evil, I think they just don't understand the facts; this is where we differ.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Lots of things are necessary for life at one level but poisonous at a higher level, including oxygen & water. CO2 needs to be in the "Goldilocks zone"; it has to be "just right" for our civilization to continue as it has.
They want to prescribe our atmosphere, I prefer freedom. This is where we differ.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
If you live long enough, you WILL pay more to prevent the inundation of New York. If you don't, your progeny will - & they'll despise your current attitudes. I hope it's worth it for a few shekels.
I'll never pay even one shekel for the inundation of New York, I don't live there and I never forced anyone to live there.

.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24807
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
BTW, posters like Kyle, Fair Game & SpaceBlues have already simply CRUSHED your "arguments" - not that you'd notice it. You'll just keep repeating the same things you've said in the past.
I haven't seen a citation for a peer reviewed experiment on climate change mitigation, have you?

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
So this is my repeated point: YOU are the ones who want to change the atmosphere, so the onus is on YOU to prove it's safe,
I'm not advocating changing the atmosphere, I advocate the freedom to add or remove as much CO2 as you like. There's already plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere, I won't change that.

It's HSL who advocates changing and controlling atmosphere CO2, not I.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
not on us to prove mitigation is possible & effective.
No, its on scientist to provide compelling experimental evidence; else science fails.

.
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
You have your ethics arrantly backward. No surprise for a selfish sociopath like you, though.
I don't call my opponents names because I prefer rationality to childish insults.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24808
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
You're right of course, there was no control:
Thank you for acknowledging the 'experiment' wasn't on man made greenhouse gases and thus not on the man made climate change.

What was the dependent variable and how did they change it?

.
Fair Game wrote:
we need to deduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and see if we observe the opposite effect.
What do you mean "we"?

Speak for yourself; I'm not a scientist. I don't do experiments.

Put me in the control group, I want to emit CO2 ad lib.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24809
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Kyle wrote:
There you have it - Brian's entire "argument" in a nutshell. Allow me to translate from denier-speak:
TRANS: "I have no scientific argument, so here's another lame repetition of the #1 retarded denier argument that has been refuted several times recently in this thread alone. Instead, here's my real argument and motivation - I want the freedom to not have to make any changes in my life, continue to avoid the external costs of my CO2 emissions, allowing others to be inordinately affected or even killed, while remaining in denial that I will be harmed at all. In other words, I'm both delusional and beyond selfish; I can't process the thought that I have to make changes for my own good and am perfectly willing to commit atrocities to avoid maintenance them."
Nice. You should be very proud.
My entire argument is, there have been no trials, tests, experiments, demonstrations or real world atmospheric models of climate change mitigation so we don't know if it will harm more than help or how much it would cost.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24810
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Kyle wrote:
YES WE DO, DENIER A-HOLE. Respond to previous rebuttals, cease spamming us with this refuted BS, or just stfu. Failure to respond to repeated rebuttals is a concession in any debate forum. You conceded 20 times in a row.
^^^I don't insult my political opponents because I believe reason is better than emotional arguments; this is where we differ.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24811
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
This was done over and over. Look them up. No repeat is necssary by you any more. Stop posting. As you promised.
Fair Game wrote it wasn't an experiment on man made greenhouse gas emissions because it wasn't 'reversed'. I still can't figure out what the dependent variable was, maybe the focus of the lenses.

Did you learn what dependent variables were changed while the greenhouse gas spectra was measured?
PHD2

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24812
Mar 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You live in a country where there's no free lunch. Yet you show up here demanding explanation for your claims.
You came up with your claims; you do your own research. You must remember what you say is not science unless you reference science.
Good luck.
Here are 174 questions people like you repeat for answers. Go for yours.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I don't understand how in both cases where temps rise and fall a year later anyone with a straight face can claim when temps rise it's an indication of Global Warming AND when temps fall it's also evidense of Global Warming.

MAKES NO SENSE!!

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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••