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
23,661 - 23,680 of 32,096 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24961
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

If you were anything but a POS hypocrite, you'd have sent the same message to the morons you agree with. Oops, more "logic" Brain Gone cannot refute.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24962
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Kyle wrote:
..., douchebag... efftard ....
Insults detract from content.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24963
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Kyle wrote:
A LIE.... you're a prevaricating bag of excrement....
Calling people on their irrationality shows you care.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24964
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

If you had any integrity, you'd have said the same to Phd.... Sorry Brain Gone, when the shoe fits...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24965
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Kyle wrote:
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.
There's no way to differentiate fossil carbon from natural sources from fossil carbon from oil, coal and gas use. Oil seeps from natural reservoirs and enters the biosphere, so does oil used to warm you home and their isotope signatures are the same.

Without experiments, there's no way to know how much a given amount of man made CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions. There are no peer reviewed experimental tests on this so we can't know if we release 100% of the increased atmospheric CO2 or if the correct figure is less than 1%.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24966
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

If you had any integrity, you'd have said the same to Phd.... Sorry Brain Gone, when the shoe fits...

No point in rehashing your dusty old diatribes, you're a dumbass....
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24967
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
Insults detract from content.
But descriptions of "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver", which insult it, are full of accurate content.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24968
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Man made CO2 emissions from cultivating yeast has increased since humans discovered the effects of alcohol a million years ago. Yeast produced carbon dioxide as dough rises to make bread the same way it dumps CO2 into the atmosphere when fermented beverages are made.

The carbon yeast pumps into the air has a different isotope ratio from the carbon burned when a surgeon uses fossil fuel energy to help save the life of your child or the carbon freed into the air when your mom cooks your family dinner. In either case, that CO2 enters the atmosphere to help keep our climate from freezing.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24970
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Kyle wrote:
...You claim that the science is poorly grounded because there must be experiments performed that require separating CO2 molecules based upon their origin in recent organic material or not, and then testing the centuries old solid science of the greenhouse effect of CO2 to see if the former isn't >100X more potent than the latter,
That's not my claim, I've said we can't know if it's possible to mitigate climate change because it hasn't been experimentally tested, just like you can't know if the used car you're buying will work unless you take it for a test drive.

It doesn't matter if we're mitigating the effects fossil fuel use, mitigating against the effects of destroying a natural CO2 sink or mitigating against emissions from decayed biomass because there's no way to know if it can help without tests.

.
Kyle wrote:
thereby justifying your science denial. That's retarded. You know it. Defend it or concede it you knuckle-dragging waste of flesh.
^^^They use insults, ad hominem arguments, because they can't deal with rational arguments.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24972
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico during the Deepwater Horizon disaster three years ago killed off millions of amoeba-like creatures that form the basis of the gulf's aquatic food chain, according to scientists at the University of South Florida.

The die-off of tiny foraminifera stretched through the mile-deep DeSoto Canyon and beyond, following the path of an underwater plume of oil that snaked out from the wellhead, said David Hollander, a chemical oceanographer with USF.

"Everywhere the plume went, the die-off went," Hollander said.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wate...

Why soiled sediment?

One intriguing question is why some oil settled into the sediment on the bottom of the gulf a mile deep and stayed there. Hollander says that may be the work of two factors. One is the dispersant called Corexit that BP used to try to spread the oil out so it wouldn't wash ashore. The other is the Mississippi River.

BP sprayed Corexit directly at the wellhead spewing oil from the bottom of the gulf, even though no one had ever tried spraying it below the water's surface before. BP also used more of the dispersant than had been used in any previous oil spill, 1.8 million gallons, to try to break up the oil.

Meanwhile, the spill coincided with the typical spring flood of the mighty Mississippi, which sent millions of gallons of freshwater cascading in to push the oil away from the coast.

The Corexit broke the oil droplets down into smaller drops, creating the plume, Hollander said. Then the smaller oil droplets bonded with clay and other materials carried into the gulf by the Mississippi, sinking into the sediment where they killed the foraminifera.

In some areas where the die-off occurred, he said, the tiny creatures came back, but in others the bottom remains bare. Meanwhile, some of the burrowing kind are digging down into the contaminated sediment and stirring it up all over again.
Bushwhacker

Kent, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24973
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

If you had any integrity, you'd have said the same to Phd.... Sorry Brain Gone, when the shoe fits...

No point in rehashing your dusty old diatribes, you're a dumbass....

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24974
Apr 5, 2013
 

Judged:

5

3

3

Oil and natural gas constantly seeps out of natural reservoirs, coal is exposed and weathered by erosion. If we don't use fossil fuel, they'll contaminate the environment without providing the energy we need.

Fortunately, life on Earth evolved to survive planetary differentiation, the process where lighter elements rise to the surface and denser materials sink back down.

Fear of fossil fuel shows a lack of faith in science.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24975
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Biig_Gzoof is getting a lot of attention.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24976
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I often ignore people who can't engage in rational arguments. Nobody has to put up with abusive, insulting and bullying posts.
Correction: Your prepping to ignore my very rational arguments with this as your excuse, you transparent efftard. Everyone knows it. You lie, backpedal, and are as abusive, insulting and bullying as any of the rational and honest posters.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24977
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^More name calling. If reason fails, irrational ad hominem fallacies is all that remains.
Substantive response - utterly lacking.

I accept your concession inre: that post.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24978
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Insults detract from content.
Response to arguments - nowhere to be found.

I accept your concession inre: that post as well.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24979
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Calling people on their irrationality shows you care.
Another total evasion = yet another concession that you can't defend your position. I accept it as well.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24980
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

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

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24981
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
Man made CO2 emissions from cultivating yeast has increased since humans discovered the effects of alcohol a million years ago. Yeast produced carbon dioxide as dough rises to make bread the same way it dumps CO2 into the atmosphere when fermented beverages are made.
The carbon yeast pumps into the air has a different isotope ratio from the carbon burned when a surgeon uses fossil fuel energy to help save the life of your child or the carbon freed into the air when your mom cooks your family dinner. In either case, that CO2 enters the atmosphere to help keep our climate from freezing.
ROTFLMAO!

OMFG, Lyin' Brian! You've outdone yourself here. A logical analysis of this to disentangle all of the interwoven fallacies and rhetorical tricks (ham-fisted as they are) would be 10X as long as your comment.

All that this comment of yours does is show how you deserve ev ery insult that comes your way. I ask again, who pays you to look like the world's most retarded liar merely to sow confusion on this subject? There is no other rational explanation for why you would do as you do.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24982
Apr 6, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not my claim, I've said we can't know if it's possible to mitigate climate change because it hasn't been experimentally tested, just like you can't know if the used car you're buying will work unless you take it for a test drive.
It doesn't matter if we're mitigating the effects fossil fuel use, mitigating against the effects of destroying a natural CO2 sink or mitigating against emissions from decayed biomass because there's no way to know if it can help without tests.
.
<quoted text>^^^They use insults, ad hominem arguments, because they can't deal with rational arguments.
Yes, it absolutely was your claim. I won't bother reposting your BS. We all know that you're a liar and willing to look like the biggest liar that ever lived, so reposting it will not result in you suddenly changing into a moral, rational debater.

So you distract from being caught in your lie - a lie used to try to defend a BS argument - by repeating the BS argument. However, you still have not supported said BS argument, nor have you responded to previous rebuttals of said BS argument.

We've performed this experiment - we added 100+ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.(Or do you want to try to lie about that, to, a-hole?) The results are in. Not surprisingly, the results were consistent with the basic science known for centuries.

Now, you refuse to acknowledge that this experiment has been done; demanding an experiment wherein the CO2 is reduced some similar amount and then wait for the results. Apparently, you think it's possible that the law of cause and effect needs to be proven true. Is that your argument, jackbag?

Besides your demand being RETARDED, it is BEYOND RETARDED because that action goes far beyond those that your entire reason for living appears to be arguing against!

And the insults are earned, dipsquat. They're exclamation points following each of your deceits and logical travesties.

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 ]
•••