Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

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. Full Story
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25026 Apr 9, 2013
You don't prove anything and you deserve our contempt, by being deliberately obtuse... Poor brain gone, find a life, that doesn't destroy our environment.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25027 Apr 9, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]my argument follows the previous poster's ideas.[/QUOTE]

'lyin' brian' follows toxic topix AGW deniers, because:

"lyin' brian" has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa & no science & mathematics degrees.

"lyin' brian" is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

"lyin' brian" makes purposeful "lyin' brian" errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25028 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Man's CO2 emissions might be an insignificant force on climate; we'll never know without experimental tests.
You have forfeited the right to continue to make this RETARDED argument. You forfeited it by repeatedly refusing to respond to, or even acknowledge, the many refutations of it. Your concession is accepted.
Brian_G wrote:
Some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Some greenhouse gases are more rare than others.
But science has proven that CO2 is the primary GHG, besides water vapor, which science has also shown to be a dependent variable that acts as a positive feedback.
ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU, AN ADMITTED SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATE, D_E_N_Y THE SCIENCE?
One thing we also know for sure. Well two things actually. First, we know that human CO2 contributions (99%) are not 100+ times less potent GHG’s than other CO2. Second, WE KNOW THAT YOU MADE THIS ARGUMENT BY IMPLICATION AND ARE TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT IT.
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experiment on any man made greenhouse gas and global climate.
There’s never been any scientific observation whatsoever, experiments be damned, that remotely supports your denier BS that there is any100+ fold difference in the IR trapping ability of CO2 molecules based upon the cause of their emission. And that IS the ONLY possible “logica”l meaning to this BS argument of yours.
Brian_G wrote:
The pseudo science of man made global warming alarmism doesn't have the technology to solve the problem.
Red herring, you effin’ weasel. Are you again making a RETARDED denier Argument from Consequences? Listen up, moron. You have no business trying to derail the argument onto solutions when the argument is existence of the problem. Hell, isn’t that what they pay you for? To have the nonexistent controversy over the existence of the problem prevent any steps to mitigate? Better call your boss again; I think you’re screwing up.
Besides, your assertion that we don’t have the technology is just that – a bare assertion. It also ignores the fact that technology isn’t static, Denier a-holes like you are responsible for slowing the rate of technological advancement, too.
Brian_G wrote:
Adapt to climate, that's worked in the past.
I already refuted that BS claim! Do you want me to find it and cut-n-paste it so that all can see how deniers NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE REFUTATIONS? Especially the paid ones.
Brian_G wrote:
It's not just humans who have failed climate change mitigation; no plant or animal species has evolved the ability of mitigating global climate.
I already refuted that BS claim, too! Do you want me to repost it, too? How many times do you want to go around and ‘round? You sure as shite aren’t a scientist. Not because you already have admitted it, but because no scientist would ignore that something has been refuted and repeat it. That’s dogmatism, the antithesis of science.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't you believe in evolution.
Nut Lyin’ Brian, you can’t POSSIBLY believe in evolution! After all, so much of it is an historical science, just like the list of historical sciences that I asked if you DENY as you do climate science. You know, just another rebuttal THAT YOU DISHONESTLY IGNORED.
Brian_G wrote:
I know you don't get the role of experiments in testing theory and prototypes and model improvements brought to market?
And we all know that you are paid far too well to acknowledge anything your told about how RETARDED it is for you to cling to your 5th grade level of understanding of what constitutes valid science AFTER BEING CORRECTED A DOZEN TIMES.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't buy a pig in a poke.
And please folks, don’t give any credibility to a pig like Lyin’ Brian.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25029 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Man's CO2 emissions might be an insignificant force on climate; we'll never know without experimental tests.
You have forfeited the right to continue to make this RETARDED argument. You forfeited it by repeatedly refusing to respond to, or even acknowledge, the many refutations of it. Your concession is accepted.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25030 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Some greenhouse gases are more powerful than others. Some greenhouse gases are more rare than others.
But science has proven that CO2 is the primary GHG, besides water vapor, which science has also shown to be a dependent variable that acts as a positive feedback.

ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU, AN ADMITTED SCIENTIFIC ILLITERATE, D_E_N_Y THE SCIENCE?

One thing we also know for sure. Well two things actually. First, we know that human CO2 contributions (99%) are not 100+ times less potent GHG’s than other CO2. Second, WE KNOW THAT YOU MADE THIS ARGUMENT BY IMPLICATION AND ARE TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT IT.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25031 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experiment on any man made greenhouse gas and global climate.
There’s never been any scientific observation whatsoever, experiments be damned, that remotely supports your denier BS that there is any100+ fold difference in the IR trapping ability of CO2 molecules based upon the cause of their emission. And that IS the ONLY possible “logica”l meaning to this BS argument of yours.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25032 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The pseudo science of man made global warming alarmism doesn't have the technology to solve the problem.
Red herring, you effin’ weasel. Are you again making a RETARDED denier Argument from Consequences? Listen up, moron. You have no business trying to derail the argument onto solutions when the argument is existence of the problem. Hell, isn’t that what they pay you for? To have the nonexistent controversy over the existence of the problem prevent any steps to mitigate? Better call your boss again; I think you’re screwing up.

Besides, your assertion that we don’t have the technology is just that – a bare assertion. It also ignores the fact that technology isn’t static, Denier a-holes like you are responsible for slowing the rate of technological advancement, too.
dem

United States

#25033 Apr 9, 2013
This where the dumb birthers hide while awaiting their death?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25034 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Adapt to climate, that's worked in the past.
I already refuted that BS claim! Do you want me to find it and cut-n-paste it so that all can see how deniers NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE REFUTATIONS? Especially the paid ones.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25035 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
It's not just humans who have failed climate change mitigation; no plant or animal species has evolved the ability of mitigating global climate.
I already refuted that BS claim, too! Do you want me to repost it, too? How many times do you want to go around and ‘round? You sure as shite aren’t a scientist. Not because you already have admitted it, but because no scientist would ignore that something has been refuted and repeat it. That’s dogmatism, the antithesis of science.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25036 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't you believe in evolution.
Nut Lyin’ Brian, you can’t POSSIBLY believe in evolution! After all, so much of it is an historical science, just like the list of historical sciences that I asked if you DENY as you do climate science. You know, just another rebuttal THAT YOU DISHONESTLY IGNORED.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25037 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I know you don't get the role of experiments in testing theory and prototypes and model improvements brought to market?
And we all know that you are paid far too well to acknowledge anything your told about how RETARDED it is for you to cling to your 5th grade level of understanding of what constitutes valid science AFTER BEING CORRECTED A DOZEN TIMES.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25038 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Don't buy a pig in a poke.
And please folks, don’t give any credibility to a pig like Lyin’ Brian.

And now, because we know that Lyin' Brian is fully capable of dishonestly ignoring refutations both in bulk and singularly, I will repost the science that he refuses to acknowledge.

He will refuse to acknowledge it again. Or possibly, he will acknowledge it, and then proceed to excrete a foul melange of fallacies, misdirection, and hand-waving nonsense.

Which will, of course, no matter which tack he takes, illustrate that Lyin' Brian is anti-science, anti-reality, intellectually dishonest, grossly dishonest in general, and not here to get to the truth but to promote what he knows to be lies.

He could, theoretically, acknowledge these refutations and deal with them in an honest manner, but I hereby swear that I'll donate my entire net worth to the Koch brothers and commit suicide if he actually does that.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25039 Apr 9, 2013
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

Knox, IN

#25040 Apr 9, 2013
LYIN' BRIAN -“Learn the difference between an experiment and history, experiments are pre planned, controlled and have the goal of testing a theory. What's the most compelling experiment you've seen?”

Yes, yes, yes, we know you’re not a scientist; you don’t have to beat that dead horse by displaying your gross scientific illiteracy. Here’s a couple of ways you’re dead wrong:

1) Rejection of historical sciences - If you reject climate science on the basis of it being an historical science, then may we presume that you reject all of the historical sciences? Evolution? Geology? Paleontology? Astronomy? Astrophysics?

2) Defining science as ONLY single factor controlled experiments – ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS ONCE, MORON, SO PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME. I’ve personally designed and executed experiments with several independent variables, some of which I couldn’t control, yet I was able to extract not only the contributions of each to each response variable, I was able to determine the effects of the interactions between two variables – sometimes even three way interactions. This is std stuff. Piece of cake. Done every day in 100’s of different fields. YOUR IGNORANCE IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!

http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Mater ...

Simplistic table top experiments for school children impress you? Why didn’t you say so; I thought you insisted on planetary scale testing. No problem then; every conceivable aspect of the physics has been examined, beginning 150 yrs ago.

LYIN' BRIAN -“Check them out, maybe you'll learn ad hoc fossil fuel use over time since the industrial revolution isn't an experiment.”

Read an effin’ book, maybe you’ll learn that your simplistic, limited, 5th grade concept of science is RETARDED.

“I'm impressed with the data's extremely low CO2 temperature effect.”

I’m impressed (not) by your reading comprehension, considering that YOUR LINK said in the SECOND SENTENCE,“Only qualitative conclusions are drawn from the experimental results, and these are critically and carefully applied to climate related issues.”

For the hard of thinking – QUALITATIVE MEANS NOT QUANTITATIVE. D_O__Y_O_U__U_N_D_E_R_S_T_A_N_ D__T_H_E__W_O_R_D_S__T_H_A_T__ I_’_M__T_Y_P_I_N_G, YOU SIMPERING TWIT?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25041 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I quoted him directly, that quote is unchanged.
Paleohumans invented our fire technology, they already had the argument and it comes down to, "Fire good!" What's next, trying to reinvent the wheel?

Which is it, dipsquat?:

Are you so terminally stupid that you cannot differentiate the magnitudes of millions of camp fires burning biomass and biilions of people burning tankloads of gasoline, burning coal by the ton, etc.?

Or are you that desperately dishonest in your denial efforts?

Not rhetorical questions. Which is it. To you really wish flake the argument foe equivalency? Are you the typical denier; perfectly willing to appear functionally retarded if it's necessary to avoid conceding the most trivial point?

Hmmm? Stop ignoring my posts.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25042 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is untrue, natural carbon dioxide emission far outweigh's man's use of fossil fuel. Look at the yearly cycle in Keeling's atmospheric carbon dioxide graphs; it looks like Earth is breathing as she orbits the sun.

A LIE. You are being deliberately dishonest. You know damn well it is invalid to look at one half of an annual CYCLE and use it to dismiss the multi-year trend. What a scumbag. Here's the truth about Keeling's graph:

Charles David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego, was the first person to make frequent regular measurements of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, taking readings at the South Pole and in Hawaii from 1958 onwards.[2]

Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability. Keeling had perfected the measurement techniques and observed "strong diurnal behavior with steady values of about 310 ppm in the afternoon" at three locations:(Big Sur near Monterey, the rain forests of Olympic Peninsula and high mountain forests in Arizona).[3] By measuring the ratio of two isotopes of carbon, Keeling attributed the diurnal change to respiration from local plants and soils, with afternoon values representative of the "free atmosphere". By 1960, Keeling and his group had determined that the measurement records from California, Antarctica, and Hawaii were long enough to see not just the diurnal and seasonal variations, but also a year-on-year increase that roughly matched the amount of fossil fuels burned per year. In the article that made him famous, Keeling observed, "at the South Pole the observed rate of increase is nearly that to be expected from the combustion of fossil fuel". He also noted an apparent absence of any reduction due to absorption of CO2 by the oceans.[4]
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25043 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We can't know what the rates of emission are, because nobody measures whether you store or use the gas, oil and coal you buy.

Hillariously desparate ploy, douchebag. Are you really suggesting that the science is uncertain because it's just possible that 99% of all fossil fuels produced are being horded and never used?! What a monumental efftard you are.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25044 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> We can't measure Earth's geological CO2 emissions because more than three quarters of the Earth is under the oceans.
We can't know because we don't have the data; ..

A LIE. The FACT that the isotopic signatures are different has been presented to you repeatedly. Besides, are you seriously suggesting that not only may 99% of fossil fuel production be horded, but also that ocean floor volcanism/venting may well be 100X the best scientifically derived numbers?

This behavior of yours is called confirmation bias - or it would be if you really believed it. you;ve just made it crystal clear that you're a prevaricating bag of excrement. Which Koch-funded "think tank" pays you to post all day?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25045 Apr 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Kyle wrote:

"Who gives a flying eff that a denier moron like yourself thinks they need to act seperately to disentangle their effects."

I think its a good idea to see experimental data before blah, blah, blah (insert variation on same old tired, totally discredited BS claim made a thousand times)

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.

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
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 11 hr Bill 26,311
Twin Cities: lowest metro unemployment rate in US 12 hr Imma Gunna 20
Solargate, Obama donor goes bankrupt (Sep '11) 16 hr Billy 75
sext me!!! Sat ThisGuy19 1
free stuff Sat Space ace 3
the NON affordable care act (Oct '13) Sat LIbEalS 266
Minneapolis Bikers fear sex offender Hells angels (Apr '13) Sat MN 81Support Girl 3
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis Jobs

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 ]