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
27,161 - 27,180 of 31,998 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29476
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

10

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.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29477
Sep 9, 2013
 

Judged:

12

12

12

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
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29479
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

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
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29480
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

4

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

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29482
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

41

41

41

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."
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29483
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

36

36

36

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?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29484
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

35

35

33

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.
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29485
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

39

39

39

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.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29486
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

38

38

38

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"
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29487
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

32

32

32

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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29488
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

30

30

30

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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29489
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

30

30

30

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?
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29490
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

34

34

34

motheaten wrote:
I was quoting litesong........
....... cause "motheaten" ken't do nothin' hisself......
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29491
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

31

31

31

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.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29493
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

23

23

23

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.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29494
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

29

29

29

Just call it an IceAge, Al Gore has cashed in on the earthly warming scam.
LIbErals

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29495
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

22

22

22

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.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29496
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

24

24

22

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.
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29497
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

21

21

21

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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29498
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

22

22

20

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!

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 ]
•••