Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35576 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.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#32515 Mar 26, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
Better see direct datas rather than comments about them

Adam 36

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#32516 Mar 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>It's night in Paris. So I'll reply until 'Don' joins the forum tomorrow.
Actually, much is underestimated but predictions improve every day with science progress.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, duh. It's thus the man-made global warming that is driving the global climate change, sealevel rise, floods, droughts, species, etc while CO2 has additional effects like ocean acidification.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidifi...
The Martian atmosphere is 96% Carbon Dioxide.

Why is it so cold?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32517 Mar 26, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
Oh god, we cannot let this news out, If it continues to build, we we will lose on the lie of global warming. How will I continue to fuel my many private jets and suvs? Damn you sorry minions.
Another quote from Steven Goddard, high priest of the cult of stupid.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-...

Disciples of the cult of stupid recite his mumbo jumbo without question, even when history has long ago proved him wrong- Arctic sea ice crashed to a new record low in 2012.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32518 Mar 26, 2014
Adam 36 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Martian atmosphere is 96% Carbon Dioxide.
Why is it so cold?
Several vital factors that you’ve forgotten to take into consideration…

The Martian atmosphere has a mass of just 25 teratonnes compared to Earth which has a mass of 5.1 petatonnes. With 95.3% of the Martian atmosphere being carbon dioxide there’s is a total atmospheric mass of 23.820 teratonnes of CO2, Earth on the other hand has 0.0396% atmospheric carbon dioxide by volume with a total mass of 2.039 teratonnes.

The Martian atmosphere has a density of just 0.6 kilopascals compared to 101.3 on Earth.

The atmospheric volume (surface area x atmospheric scale height) of Mars is 1,013,589,000 cubic kilometres, on Earth it’s a 5,610,792,000 cubic kilometres.

So rather than Mars having 243,000 times as much CO2 per unit volume than Earth it actually has 64.694 times as much.

Atmospheric concentration of CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, is not in itself a direct indicator of the heat retentive capacity of an atmosphere. Earth has an effective greenhouse effect due to the presence of water vapour within the atmosphere, without getting technical, this acts as the catalyst which enables heat to be retained by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The Martian atmosphere is about 0.03% water vapour and as a result almost all the carbon dioxide that’s present is useless when it comes to retaining heat energy from the Sun. Earth has 30 times the amount of water vapour which gives it an much better atmosphere for retaining heat.

If Earth and Mars were equidistant from the Sun and thus receiving identical amounts of heat, then Earth would have an average temperature of 14°C and Mars would be –16C. Mars would be so much cooler due to having a fraction of the mass and density of atmosphere that Earth has and a very poor atmospheric composition in respect of heat retentive capacity.

There’s also the issue of equilibrium climate sensitivity to be taken into account, basically the point that A Modest Proposal has made concerning the relationship between atmospheric concentration and temperature.

If you want to see what happens to a planet that has 95% carbon dioxide in it’s atmosphere (96.5% actually) but unlike Mars, does have the right conditions for a strong greenhouse effect, then take a look at Venus. Despite being much further from the Sun than Mercury is, it’s the hottest place in the solar system other than the Sun itself. The surface temperature is 467°C, enough to melt lead.

The above explanation only scratches the surface, there is much more to know in order to understand the temperatures of the planetary bodies and the multitude of factors that affect them.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

(You have to be careful with Yahoo! answers, because any fool can answer, and the fools think their ignorance is as good as any body else's knowledge, but this is the answer.)

Adam 36

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#32519 Mar 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Several vital factors that you’ve forgotten to take into consideration…
The Martian atmosphere has a mass of just 25 teratonnes compared to Earth which has a mass of 5.1 petatonnes. With 95.3% of the Martian atmosphere being carbon dioxide there’s is a total atmospheric mass of 23.820 teratonnes of CO2, Earth on the other hand has 0.0396% atmospheric carbon dioxide by volume with a total mass of 2.039 teratonnes.
The Martian atmosphere has a density of just 0.6 kilopascals compared to 101.3 on Earth.
The atmospheric volume (surface area x atmospheric scale height) of Mars is 1,013,589,000 cubic kilometres, on Earth it’s a 5,610,792,000 cubic kilometres.
So rather than Mars having 243,000 times as much CO2 per unit volume than Earth it actually has 64.694 times as much.
Atmospheric concentration of CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, is not in itself a direct indicator of the heat retentive capacity of an atmosphere. Earth has an effective greenhouse effect due to the presence of water vapour within the atmosphere, without getting technical, this acts as the catalyst which enables heat to be retained by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The Martian atmosphere is about 0.03% water vapour and as a result almost all the carbon dioxide that’s present is useless when it comes to retaining heat energy from the Sun. Earth has 30 times the amount of water vapour which gives it an much better atmosphere for retaining heat.
If Earth and Mars were equidistant from the Sun and thus receiving identical amounts of heat, then Earth would have an average temperature of 14°C and Mars would be –16C. Mars would be so much cooler due to having a fraction of the mass and density of atmosphere that Earth has and a very poor atmospheric composition in respect of heat retentive capacity.
There’s also the issue of equilibrium climate sensitivity to be taken into account, basically the point that A Modest Proposal has made concerning the relationship between atmospheric concentration and temperature.
If you want to see what happens to a planet that has 95% carbon dioxide in it’s atmosphere (96.5% actually) but unlike Mars, does have the right conditions for a strong greenhouse effect, then take a look at Venus. Despite being much further from the Sun than Mercury is, it’s the hottest place in the solar system other than the Sun itself. The surface temperature is 467°C, enough to melt lead.
The above explanation only scratches the surface, there is much more to know in order to understand the temperatures of the planetary bodies and the multitude of factors that affect them.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
(You have to be careful with Yahoo! answers, because any fool can answer, and the fools think their ignorance is as good as any body else's knowledge, but this is the answer.)
Mercury has little to no carbon dioxide. You just make the case against CO2

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#32520 Mar 26, 2014
Adam 36 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mercury has little to no carbon dioxide. You just make the case against CO2
Nope, you just illustrate the need for my warning that fools think their ignorance is as good as any body else's knowledge.

Adam 36

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#32521 Mar 26, 2014
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you just illustrate the need for my warning that fools think their ignorance is as good as any body else's knowledge.
It seems you never read your own link

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#32522 Mar 26, 2014

“Come Home America!”

Since: Nov 11

Claymont, Delaware 19809

#32523 Mar 26, 2014
But there's a deeper drawback to the message of quantitative overreach: It doesn't accurately define the problem, and thus leads us away from real answers. Take hunger, for example. Is it the result of hitting nature's quantitative limits? Not when a third of all food is literally wasted and we waste vast food potential by devoting three-fourths of all agricultural land to animal food production that supplies only 16 percent of our calories. In fact, of all the calories livestock consume, humans get only 3 percent in the animal flesh we eat. Or consider energy: In the U.S., it's estimated that from 55 to 87 percent is wasted. And nature's potential supply? The sun brings us 15,000 times the daily dose of energy -- mostly untapped -- relative to what we currently consume in fossil fuels. And beyond waste, just one example of destruction: Every year unsustainable farming practices result in a loss of topsoil equal to seven pick-up trucks' full of topsoil for each person on earth each year; yet it takes 200 years, at least, to generate one inch of this resource essential to our survival.- See more at: http://smallplanet.org/feeds/when-eco-battle-...
litesong

Everett, WA

#32524 Mar 26, 2014
desperate warmist wrote:
Using new satellite data, scientists have measured the most frigid temperature ever recorded on the continent's eastern highlands: about -136°F (-93°C)—colder than dry ice.
The temperature breaks the 30-year-old record of about -128.6°F (-89.2°C), measured by the Vostok weather station in a nearby location.
So you show a satellite temperature of a surface of the Earth, which never had its temperature recorded before...... yeah, a ridge point thousands of feet higher than Vostok, & normally colder due to increasing elevation.

Not indicating a colder Earth, the temperature measurement does show advancement in technology.

Its easy to see "dw" had no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in a poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong

Everett, WA

#32525 Mar 26, 2014
Desperate Warmist wrote:
it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line
Slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers love to lie, stating that 2013(& now 2014) was so cold that a new ice age was starting. Let's look at the Arctic sea ice VOLUME, & see this coming ice age of slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers:

Arctic sea ice VOLUME, as of March 1, 2014 is 0.5% to 1% lower than that of the "2010-to-current" time range. Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for March 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~28,200 cubic kilometers. Present March 1, 2014 sea ice VOLUME is ~20,800 cubic kilometers,~7400 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for March 1.

Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific slimy steenking toxic topix AGW deniers, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.
LIbEralS

Minneapolis, MN

#32526 Mar 26, 2014
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated.

Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-2...
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#32528 Mar 26, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated.
Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-2...
The price of human health is priceless.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32529 Mar 26, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated.
Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-2...
Surely, you are not against criticism. That's how reports improve!

From bbc, also: In its own words, the IPCC is there "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts".

The offspring of two UN bodies - the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme - it has issued four heavyweight assessment reports to date on the state of the climate.

These are commissioned by the governments of 195 countries - essentially the entire world. These reports are critical in informing the climate policies adopted by these governments.

The IPCC itself is a small organisation run from Geneva with a full-time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it contribute on a voluntary basis.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32530 Mar 26, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated.
Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-2...
Where did you copy/paste those words?

Your link does not have them.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#32531 Mar 26, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-2...
"But some researchers are decidedly unhappy with the draft report.
Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex,(...)"
Economic searchers are no great shakes

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32532 Mar 26, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
"But some researchers are decidedly unhappy with the draft report.
Prof Richard Tol is an economist at the University of Sussex,(...)"
Economic searchers are no great shakes
economics have no great shakes in your world......that's why the EU is being propped up by Germany.......the only country in your socialistic society who does give credence to economics.

germany is a rational country....the rest of you have lost your way....time and again!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#32533 Mar 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Surely, you are not against criticism.

The IPCC itself is a small organisation run from Geneva with a full-time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it contribute on a voluntary basis.
EXACTLY!!!! How many of those 12 are real scientists???
They plug in what the government funded scientists say.....and then omit what the politicians want them to.

ARE YOU REALLY THIS STUPID, SON?
Follow The Money

United States

#32534 Mar 26, 2014
Global Warming is a hoax and an enormous waste of money and resources that could be better spent on the enormous numbers of real problems that are out there. Researchers in the Global Warming Industry have been caught both falsifying and cherry picking research over and over. The source of information used by these alarmists is corrupted yet they still cling to it because it serves their purpose.

Judged:

12

12

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#32535 Mar 27, 2014
Follow The Money wrote:
Global Warming is a hoax and an enormous waste of money and resources that could be better spent on the enormous numbers of real problems that are out there. Researchers in the Global Warming Industry have been caught both falsifying and cherry picking research over and over. The source of information used by these alarmists is corrupted yet they still cling to it because it serves their purpose.
http://www.ibtimes.com/winter-weather-statist...
Brazil's worst drought in decades
Worst Australian Heat Wave on Record
Worst heatwave ever in Argentina
UK suffers worst winter rainfall in 250 years
France repeated storms, floods, mildest winter since 1900
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/...

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
Benghazi-Gate OBAMA not allowing access to surv... (Mar '13) 18 hr LIbEralS 343
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) Mon LIbEralS 526
Vote for Hillary Aug 28 Cruel Hillary 8
the NON affordable care act (Oct '13) Aug 27 LIbEralS 280
Trump for President, He will win. watch Aug 26 Cary Cottle 5
Welcome To Minnesota Mr. Trump Aug 20 LIbEralS 3
News Prison sentence for notable defense attorney Sa... (May '11) Aug 19 Post them 19

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages