Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 39131 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Jul 29, 2010, titled Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

Mothra

United States

#30490 Nov 20, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
It is still stupid even when it is half fast..
<quoted text>
He is entitled to his opinion. It is shared by many. Reasoned aregument content ZERO. Science content ZERO.
<quoted text>
He is entitled to his opinion. It is shared by many. Reasoned aregument content ZERO. Science content ZERO.
<quoted text>
Unfounded. And irrelevant. Like claiming that Paul Revere should be ignored because he is giving the alarm instead of being back there waiting in his own personal ambush while the town sleeps.
<quoted text>
It will still be a SLOW MOTION crisis even if Al Gore fades away. Again, no or faulty reasoning. And no science. The arguments of a ten year old or a litter bug.
<quoted text>
AGW is here. How much any individual can or does do does NOT invalidate that fact. And like Paul Revere, he chooses to raise the alarm rather than trying to singlehandedly defeating the British.
All this is pure ad-hominem and 'shooting the messenger'. Of no value to rational decision making.
<quoted text>
Intellectual honest is one thing you go to great lengths to avoid or ignore. Your entire arguement can be seen to be ad-hominem and equivalent to bitching about Paul Revere because he went to raise the alarm instead of 'proving himself' by trying to defeat the British single handedly. Anyone using REASONING skills will see just how intellectually dishonest your post is. It doesn't even TRY to debate AGW or how critical it is. It is pure Ad-Hominem arguments of no merit whatsoever.
<quoted text>
Please show you have some intellectual honesty by complaining that Paul Revere had a 'double standard' for riding to warn the town instead of fighting the British.
You are SUCH an ass.
Ahh... another warmist who can't face facts and deflects, denies and obfuscates.

Your rant went mostly unread... and Al Gore is a global warming hypocrite.

Judged:

20

20

18

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#30491 Nov 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
Isotopes of CO2 prove that CO2 is coming from oil deposits buried in the ground millions of years ago....
^^^This is untrue, they can't tell if the CO2 came from oil or ancient carbon dioxide found in the ocean deeps, isotopes can only tell if the carbon is new or old. C14's half life is 5,700 years so litesong's "millions of years" dogma is incorrect.

Judged:

20

19

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#30492 Nov 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, they can't tell if the CO2 came from oil or ancient carbon dioxide found in the ocean deeps, isotopes can only tell if the carbon is new or old.
"CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

Thus the C12/C13 ratio shows that the CO2 added is from PLANT material (which excludes mineral sources such as limestone)
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> C14's half life is 5,700 years so litesong's "millions of years" dogma is incorrect.
The limiting factor here for C14 is about 10,000 years. But we only need to distinguish the carbon reservoir. The old carbon will be completely depleted of C14. BUT it will had a C12 to C13 ration that shows it comes from plant material and is not a modern source. i.e Fossil fuels.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#30493 Nov 21, 2013
I didn't write about CO2 from burning forests, I'm talking about the vast reservoir of undersea carbon dioxide that escapes into the air as the oceans warm. You can't tell million year old fossil fuel carbon from million year old sea floor carbon. Besides, who would want prejudice against old carbon since we are all carbon life forms now.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#30494 Nov 21, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"] I'm talking about the vast reservoir of undersea carbon dioxide that escapes into the air as the oceans warm.[/QUOTE]

Excess CO2 isn't coming from the oceans, since oceans are still absorbing CO2.

Time for a science paper from "lyin' brian", who has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra, or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa & no science & mathematics degrees. But it can consistently lie & tell the same stories over & over.

Judged:

17

17

16

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#30495 Nov 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I didn't write about CO2 from burning forests,
Nobody things you are that rational. The point in MY post (if that is what you are referring to) is that fossil fuels are from PLANT materials laid down millions of years ago. And the combination of C12/C13 and lack of C14 specifically points to plant matter that is millions of years old.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm talking about the vast reservoir of undersea carbon dioxide that escapes into the air as the oceans warm.
Two errors here. One is that the oceans are UPTAKING carbon as the partial pressure of the atmosphere increases, so losses from oceans are NOT the source. The increased partial pressure is obvioulsy a stronger forcing than the dissolution from temperature increase.

Second is that the carbon in the sea would have an essentially 'mineral' carbon isotope ration, thus not the source of change for C12/C13 ratios.
Brian_G wrote:
You can't tell million year old fossil fuel carbon from million year old sea floor carbon.
I just pointed out that you can.
Brian_G wrote:
Besides, who would want prejudice against old carbon since we are all carbon life forms now.
It is a matter of science, not prejudice. The source of the increases in atmospheric CO2 is now understood. Even if we didn't have the fuel receipts (for about twice as much carbon emissions as are accumulating in the atmosphere. The rest goes into the oceans and other 'sinks'.

Judged:

26

26

26

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#30499 Dec 5, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
Global-warming "proof" is evaporating:
Interesting how many delusional characters there are in the denialist camp. There must be a connection.

Judged:

39

39

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#30501 Dec 5, 2013
[QUOTE who="hey, I'm daffy"]First it was "Global Warming".
Then came "Climate Change".
WHY.......[/QUOTE]

In early 2000's, Frank Luntz, advisor to re-pubic-lick-uns, told them to say "climate change", to make re-pubic-lick-uns more electable.

Judged:

38

38

36

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#30502 Dec 5, 2013
Hey wrote:
First it was "Global Warming".
Yes. The basic fact of AGW was the theory that had to be confirmed before any action could be taken. It is necessary to know the CAUSE first. They called it WG1 (the scientific basis)
Hey wrote:
Then came "Climate Change".
Yes. You cannot have a major change in the global average temperature without affecting climate drastically. They are still assessing the damage. It is not 'theory' yet but certainly it is science. They call this part WG2 (Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability). This is the RISK assessment about what AGW will cost us.
Hey wrote:
WHY you ask, because it's getting Cooler instead of Warmer.
Simple lie. The surface average temperature is increasing as expected (surface is water, land and air). The air temperature at 2 meters (from meteorology as a proxy to surface temperature) is having a short term noise blip but even that is warming slowly.
Hey wrote:
So the alarmists had to come up with a new term that would work if it gets warmer OR cooler.
Walla, "Climate Change", works for any climate.
You are obviously confuse or ignorant. This is curable. Is suggest asking someone to read the IPCC WG1 report for you http://www.ipcc.ch/ and tell you what the big words mean.

Judged:

38

38

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30505 Dec 5, 2013
Hey wrote:
First it was "Global Warming".
Then came "Climate Change".
WHY you ask, because it's getting Cooler instead of Warmer.
So the alarmists had to come up with a new term that would work if it gets warmer OR cooler.
Walla, "Climate Change", works for any climate.
Note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was born in 1988.

You see those two words there? Climate Change?

Now here's another question for which you have no answer: which came first, the chicken or global warming?

Judged:

38

38

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30506 Dec 5, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogma is the foundAtion of CAGW. Claims and assertions that superstorms, and tornadoes in November, and future floods in unspecified locations and wildfires in the fall and cold weather and wet weather and dry weather ... Yes anything you care to SUGGEST: all are unprovablly the result of CAGW. Statements and assurtions based on unproven or unprovable principles... Dogma.
BS as in BS?

Anti Christ?

How are things in Gillette?

One fool, masquerading as three.

Judged:

38

37

37

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
litesong

Everett, WA

#30508 Dec 5, 2013
[QUOTE who="hey, I'm daffy"]A friend worked in antarctica and questioned scientists working there ....[/QUOTE]

Correction:
A friend of a friend of a friend went to Antarctica and questioned mechanics pumping gas there ....

Judged:

35

34

34

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#30509 Dec 6, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
...One is that the oceans are UPTAKING carbon as the partial pressure of the atmosphere increases, so losses from oceans are NOT the source. The increased partial pressure is obvioulsy a stronger forcing than the dissolution from temperature increase....
There's 25 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the air; the partial pressure is pushing CO2 out of the oceans as they warm. A majority of CO2 increase is from nonhuman sources.

Judged:

37

37

36

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LessHypeMoreFact

Orleans, Canada

#30510 Dec 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's 25 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the air; the partial pressure is pushing CO2 out of the oceans as they warm. A majority of CO2 increase is from nonhuman sources.
What idiots voted this crap up? Goes to show you that you can never overestimate the intellectual capacity of the averaqe reader. Politics thrives on that.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's 25 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the air.
Irrelevant. It is the interchange between the ocean and air that is effective.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>the partial pressure is pushing CO2 out of the oceans as they warm.
The partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans is pushing CO2 out. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is pushing CO2 in. The atmosphere CO2 has risen 40% from the previous 'equilibrium', so it is winning (relative to the balance at 280 ppm. We can tell also just from the fact that they have become less basic (more acid) over that period which is from new H2CO3 forming as CO2 increases in solution. In other words, the oceans are a SINK not a SOURCE of CO2.

And that is discounting the isotopic studies which are much convincing to the scientists.
Brian_G wrote:
A majority of CO2 increase is from nonhuman sources.


That is not what the science says. It is what one fool on the internet claims (without evidence). You really need to get a life.

Judged:

37

37

36

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
heavytune

Seattle, WA

#30513 Dec 6, 2013
Hey wrote:
<quoted text>
A friend worked in antarctica and questioned scientists working there if they thought Global Warming/Climate Change was manmade.
The response was they had to support it or they would not get a grant to work there.
way too funny 'hey',but way too sad. reality is something fools like litesong lack. stay warm my friend, this is just the beginning of our new solar cycle. one our youngest princes is in antarctica right now, learning to travel across the ice. will come in handy in the future, I'm sure. a dose of common sense is what these warmers need. maybe we can get a free taxpayers funded government grant to study that, weather permitting of course. they only seem to give the free money out for stupid imaginary stuff.

Judged:

25

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30515 Dec 7, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
Global-warming "proof" is evaporating:
global-warming-proof-is-evapor ating/
An opinion piece by a lawyer/writer who has been fired for taking money to write favorable feature stories.

Credentials? No, not much. None, in fact. Just another denier shill.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#30517 Dec 7, 2013
As scientists assess why global temperatures haven't climbed as rapidly as forecast by climate models, the theory that excess heat is being absorbed by deep ocean water has gained backing from a study by the International Programme on the State of the Oceans (IPSO).

"We've got evidence that the oceans are warming, with temperature rises of up to 1.3 degrees Celsius in places like the Baltic. We've also seen increasing evidence that the deep waters, deeper than 700 meters, are also taking up heat," IPSO's scientific director Alex Rogers, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Oxford, told DW.

"The oceans are taking up about a third of the carbon dioxide we're producing at the moment. While this is slowing the rate of earth temperature rise, it is also changing the chemistry of the ocean in a very profound way."

Carbon dioxide reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid. Gradually, this makes oceans more acidic.

-Deutsche Welle

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#30518 Dec 7, 2013
Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for next THIRTY years:

“Given the tragic events this year in the rest of the world and the recent IPCC report, EASAC feels obliged to draw attention to the growing impact of extreme weather in Europe.”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/3...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#30519 Dec 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The atmosphere CO2 has risen 40% from the previous 'equilibrium', so it is winning (relative to the balance at 280 ppm.(without evidence). You really need to get a life.
Balance = 280ppm?

Seems close to the point of a CO2 deficiency.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#30521 Dec 8, 2013
The last time we had 280ppm CO2 in the air, we had a small ice age. I believe 500ppm is a better goal.

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
News Woman's head stepped on by Rand Paul supporters (Oct '10) 1 hr Abe 26,669
It's Reparations Time at Star Bucks 4 hr Space ace 7
John McCain undergoes surgery for intestinal in... 4 hr Space ace 10
Barbara bush died 4 hr Space ace 5
Bathroom blowers supposed to be germ-free, but ... Wed Lerot Bojangles 14
My I'm Moving to Hazard Thread is Going Well Wed Lerot Bojangles 12
Drop one word....add one word game (Apr '14) Wed Chanta53 835

Minneapolis Jobs

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages