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
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29476 Sep 9, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... for something that matters so little, three replies?

Methinks you protest to much.

Enjoy your hypocrisy.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#29477 Sep 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt if he believes he can get you to any form of 'intellectual honesty'. That doesn't mean that the truth should be hidden from you OR others. THAT is 'intellectual honesty'.
why speak for "kyle", son?? when will you begin being honest with yourself? only then will you be able to be honest with others. it may not be intellectual....but it will be a good start!!

LOL

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#29479 Sep 10, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Bearing on the validity of the science = ZERO.
"Environmentalism is not a distraction its been turned around and used as a tool to further a socialist agenda. Environmentalism = EVERYTHINGism. Socialists committed ideologically to notion government should control every aspect of our lives. Will not let tool go to waste that gives absolute power and control they want and have waited 100 years for and allows them to get it under the GUSIE of saving the planet."

Patrick Moore co-founder of GreenPeace

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#29480 Sep 10, 2013
An example of KYLE logic:
- A million more square miles of ocean being covered in ice in a year's time doesn't change the fact that the Earth certainly must be warming.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#29482 Sep 10, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
A million more square miles of ocean being covered in ice in a year's time doesn't change the fact that the Earth certainly must be warming.
Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it. As is toxic topix AGW denier non-science, they love to latch on to the previous year's records(2007, 2012) of stunning drops, tho they themselves often made no comments on those vast drops, at the time. Here's the present context, as toxic topix AGW deniers won't report:

"Sea ice has NOT increased by 60%, as toxic topix AGW deniers state. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."

Judged:

41

41

41

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29483 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Global warming continues, tho you can't(won't) see it. As is toxic topix AGW denier non-science, they love to latch on to the previous year's records(2007, 2012) of stunning drops, tho they themselves often made no comments on those vast drops, at the time. Here's the present context, as toxic topix AGW deniers won't report:
"Sea ice has NOT increased by 60%, as toxic topix AGW deniers state. Due to temporary Arctic colds, Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current. Present September 1, 2013 sea ice VOLUME is ~5100 cubic kilometers,~10,000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period to September 1."
"Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current."

Hmmm... 16% more.

So more arctic ice is a good thing, isn't it?

Judged:

36

36

36

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#29484 Sep 10, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current."
Hmmm... 16% more.
So more arctic ice is a good thing, isn't it?
IF you could understand, you wouldn't be so proud of your "discovery".

But understanding is above your pay grade.

Judged:

35

35

33

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#29485 Sep 10, 2013
motheaten wrote:
"Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current."
Hmmm... 16% more.
So more arctic ice is a good thing, isn't it?
More Arctic ice is understandable, due to the sentence phrase you deleted:
Due to temporary Arctic colds......

I just calculate 'em & report 'em. toxic topix AGW deniers can't calculate properly, since they have no mathematics background. toxic topix AGW deniers can't report better evidence, since they have no science background. But toxic topix AGW deniers report their own mismatched, mis-interpreted, & missing & missed data.

What? You're not coming back with the 60% that toxic topix AGW denier liars, like yourself, are parading? 60%...... keep pushing it....... try it in your toxic topix AGW denier PEE-r reviewed science articles.......

"motheaten" earns its name. Can't defend 60%. So he defends 16%, without a reason.

Judged:

39

39

39

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#29486 Sep 10, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Arctic sea ice volume(a much better measure than extent) is presently 16% greater than the period 2010 to Current."
Hmmm... 16% more.
Bogus.
http://tinyurl.com/8aegol8
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So more arctic ice is a good thing, isn't it?
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htm
"Ice Thickness:

While there is extensive 30 year long dataset for ice extent and concentration, much less is known about the thickness of the ice cover. A wide range of observations give indications that the ice cover is thinning. Satellite-based systems for monitoring ice thickness are currently under development. Submarine surveys of ice thickness provide the most data for time series analysis. The submarine ice thickness dataset is a set of snapshots in space and time complicating efforts to develop a climatological time series. Results from Rothrock et al.(1999) shows changes in ice thickness comparing submarine results from the 1958 through 1976 to results from the 1990's. The results show that there was thinning at every point of comparison. The thinning averaged 40%, representing a decrease from about 3 m to less than 2 m"

Judged:

38

38

38

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29487 Sep 10, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you could understand, you wouldn't be so proud of your "discovery".
But understanding is above your pay grade.
Gawd... you're so pissy.

It was no discovery, but a question. Do let litesong answer. It's an easy one and he's being so coherent of late.

Judged:

32

32

32

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29488 Sep 10, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Bogus.
http://tinyurl.com/8aegol8
<quoted text>
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htm
"Ice Thickness:
While there is extensive 30 year long dataset for ice extent and concentration, much less is known about the thickness of the ice cover. A wide range of observations give indications that the ice cover is thinning. Satellite-based systems for monitoring ice thickness are currently under development. Submarine surveys of ice thickness provide the most data for time series analysis. The submarine ice thickness dataset is a set of snapshots in space and time complicating efforts to develop a climatological time series. Results from Rothrock et al.(1999) shows changes in ice thickness comparing submarine results from the 1958 through 1976 to results from the 1990's. The results show that there was thinning at every point of comparison. The thinning averaged 40%, representing a decrease from about 3 m to less than 2 m"
Bogus? I was quoting litesong.

Have a beef with it? Take it up with him.

Sheesh... you warmists are so sensitive.

Judged:

30

30

30

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29489 Sep 10, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
More Arctic ice is understandable, due to the sentence phrase you deleted:
Due to temporary Arctic colds......
I just calculate 'em & report 'em. toxic topix AGW deniers can't calculate properly, since they have no mathematics background. toxic topix AGW deniers can't report better evidence, since they have no science background. But toxic topix AGW deniers report their own mismatched, mis-interpreted, & missing & missed data.
What? You're not coming back with the 60% that toxic topix AGW denier liars, like yourself, are parading? 60%...... keep pushing it....... try it in your toxic topix AGW denier PEE-r reviewed science articles.......
"motheaten" earns its name. Can't defend 60%. So he defends 16%, without a reason.
Hey there...'hype' says your calculations are bogus.

Take it up with him.

btw, you didn't answer my question... is more arctic ice good or bad?

Judged:

30

30

30

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#29490 Sep 10, 2013
motheaten wrote:
I was quoting litesong........
....... cause "motheaten" ken't do nothin' hisself......

Judged:

34

34

34

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#29491 Sep 10, 2013
motheaten wrote:
Do let litesong answer........ he's being so coherent of late.
So 'motheaten' quotes my calculated 16%, but not toxic topix AGW deniers' misdiagnosed, incoherent & uncalculated 60%. "motheaten' takes its first correct step, since its missteps NOT taking & passing science & mathematics courses for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Judged:

31

31

31

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#29493 Sep 11, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
So 'motheaten' quotes my calculated 16%, but not toxic topix AGW deniers' misdiagnosed, incoherent & uncalculated 60%. "motheaten' takes its first correct step, since its missteps NOT taking & passing science & mathematics courses for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
<sigh>

... and now you're back to incoherent blather not worth reading.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#29494 Sep 11, 2013
Just call it an IceAge, Al Gore has cashed in on the earthly warming scam.

Judged:

29

29

29

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbErals

Saint Paul, MN

#29495 Sep 11, 2013
A leaked draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (due to be released later this month) downgraded the likelihood of a connection between past temperature rises and extreme weather events. According to the report, there is "low confidence" in any association between climate change and hurricane frequency or intensity.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#29496 Sep 11, 2013
LIbErals wrote:
A leaked draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (due to be released later this month) downgraded the likelihood of a connection between past temperature rises and extreme weather events. According to the report, there is "low confidence" in any association between climate change and hurricane frequency or intensity.
Distortion or nonsense.

Specifically, it said:

"Tropical cyclone data provides low confidence that any reported long-term changes are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."

Which means that they are less sure of the connection due to problematic differences in data sources, NOT that they have concluded that the connection is weaker..

"Over the satellite era, increases in the intensity of
17 the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear robust."

And here they confirm that they HAVE found a connection, at least for the latest high quality data.

Judged:

24

24

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#29497 Sep 11, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Distortion or nonsense.
...And here they confirm that they HAVE found a connection, at least for the latest high quality data.
TRANSLATION: ONLY the data that confirms my view can be considered "high quality data". Anything else isn't to be considered.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29498 Sep 11, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
<quoted text>
TRANSLATION: ONLY the data that confirms my view can be considered "high quality data". Anything else isn't to be considered.
CORRECT TRANSLATION: The theory explains the onservations.

The theory was not disproven!

Judged:

22

22

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge 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
Hillary clinton "businesses dont create jobs" 4 hr Sangelia 31
Franken Campaign Goes After McFadden for Sellin... 7 hr goose 1
African Aid Workers Are Not Heros 11 hr cantmakeitup 3
How the Dem intend to win this November 12 hr LIbEralS 5
The Liberal Ebola Nurse 12 hr cantmakeitup 4
Viral video documents woman's experience with s... 13 hr Liberal 3
Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 14 hr BIG_STEVIE 26,308
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

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 ]