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: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24237 Mar 8, 2013
It seems that CCS is no panacea. Without massive government subsidies it is a non-starter. There are better ways. We already see king coal knocked off its throne and natural gas move to the front. Solar and wind beat even NG. Things are a changin'!
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/why-carb...
CRASSUS

West Des Moines, IA

#24238 Mar 8, 2013
me and my trailer disagree
Capt Crunch

Surprise, AZ

#24239 Mar 8, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It seems that CCS is no panacea. Without massive government subsidies it is a non-starter. There are better ways. We already see king coal knocked off its throne and natural gas move to the front. Solar and wind beat even NG. Things are a changin'!
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/why-carb...
When beggers ride horses, we all will be kings.
Capt Crunch

West Des Moines, IA

#24240 Mar 8, 2013
Capt Crunch wrote:
<quoted text>
When beggers ride horses, we all will be kings.
I like the taste of horsemeat
SpaceBlues

United States

#24241 Mar 8, 2013
Capt Crunch wrote:
<quoted text>
I am surprised in that the Earth, and possibly the entire universe is on an unvaring[sick] clock, in that if it take X numbrer[sic] of years to complete one cycle, then it will take thew[sick] same number of years to complete another, different cycle. If this is what your Science tells you, then I suggest a new look at whom you listen to. I have little patience with fools, and unquestioning fools are the worst.
Your sentences don't make sense.

Actually, I'm the one who's reminding you to be questioning.

Again, your comprehension is suffering badly.
Capt Crunch

Surprise, AZ

#24242 Mar 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Your sentences don't make sense.
Actually, I'm the one who's reminding you to be questioning.
Again, your comprehension is suffering badly.
Thankfully, my comphrehesion keeps e from accepting everything that is proclaimrd to be THE TRUTH as an accurate description of reality. I accept Platos description of reality much more readily Tham of those whose need to write a paper exceeds their knowledge.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24243 Mar 8, 2013
Capt Crunch wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankfully, my comphrehesion[sic] keeps e[sic] from accepting everything[?] that is proclaimrd[sic] to be THE TRUTH as an accurate description of reality. I accept Platos[sic] description of reality much more readily Tham[sic] of those whose need to write a paper[?] exceeds their knowledge.
haha what are you saying?

As to Plato, we have little idea of what he said. We just have English writers in love with him, attributing words to Plato. There were no English at the time and Plato did not speak in English.

Why did he write this on papirus? Because he lacked knowledge?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P._Oxy._LII...
SpaceBlues

United States

#24244 Mar 8, 2013
The earth is hotter today than it has been for nearly all of the last 11,000 years, scientists have found, in a study that adds confirmation that human activity is causing the warming.

Previous research had only tracked the last 1,500 years, so the new research is important because it establishes a much larger context for recent global warming.

What that context shows is that the rate of warming "over the past 150 years is much greater than anything we saw in the past 11,000 years," according to Shaun Marcott, a paleoclimatologist and the lead investigator on the research, published in Science.

That "points to human activity as the cause, because the suddenness of the shift in temperature appears to be out of whack with long-term trends," as the Wall Street Journal concedes.

The findings are based on measurements taken from marine fossils, ice cores, and marine organisms.

MORE: It took just 100 years for the global average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it had taken 5,000 years to do that before.

What happened?

After the end of the ice age, our planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up.

"Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years," Marcott says.

So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before.

Why? Man-made greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere in vast amounts daily. Now, 90,000,000 tons of CO2 each day.

"The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence. And that is quite a sobering thought." [Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies]
Ralph

Minneapolis, MN

#24245 Mar 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
The earth is hotter today than it has been for nearly all of the last 11,000 years, scientists have found, in a study that adds confirmation that human activity is causing the warming.
Previous research had only tracked the last 1,500 years, so the new research is important because it establishes a much larger context for recent global warming.
What that context shows is that the rate of warming "over the past 150 years is much greater than anything we saw in the past 11,000 years," according to Shaun Marcott, a paleoclimatologist and the lead investigator on the research, published in Science.
That "points to human activity as the cause, because the suddenness of the shift in temperature appears to be out of whack with long-term trends," as the Wall Street Journal concedes.
The findings are based on measurements taken from marine fossils, ice cores, and marine organisms.
MORE: It took just 100 years for the global average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it had taken 5,000 years to do that before.
What happened?
After the end of the ice age, our planet got warmer. Then, 5,000 years ago, it started to get cooler — but really slowly. In all, it cooled 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, up until the last century or so. Then it flipped again — global average temperature shot up.
"Temperatures now have gone from that cold period to the warm period in just 100 years," Marcott says.
So it's taken just 100 years for the average temperature to change by 1.3 degrees, when it took 5,000 years to do that before.
Why? Man-made greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere in vast amounts daily. Now, 90,000,000 tons of CO2 each day.
"The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence. And that is quite a sobering thought." [Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies]
OK, so earth is being warmed by human activity.

So why has the Minnesota winter been colder than normal?

It's easy to claim the earth is burning up getting hotter each year then how can it magically cool down this year?
SpaceBlues

United States

#24246 Mar 8, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so earth is being warmed by human activity.
So why has the Minnesota winter been colder than normal?
It's easy to claim the earth is burning up getting hotter each year then how can it magically cool down this year?
I'm not an expert of your state. I've been there only twice but never in winter. Just saying.

I did this search for you to look up any of the links:

http://www.google.com/search...

P.S. Needless to say the temperatures have ups and downs but still produce an upward trend. You should know that as an elementary fact.
Ralph

Minneapolis, MN

#24247 Mar 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not an expert of your state. I've been there only twice but never in winter. Just saying.
I did this search for you to look up any of the links:
http://www.google.com/search...
P.S. Needless to say the temperatures have ups and downs but still produce an upward trend. You should know that as an elementary fact.
OK but it still seems strange if the earth was warming by mans activity it would ever cool down at all. I'd expect it to continue to warm and the warming would accelerate NOT cool down.
SpaceBlues

United States

#24249 Mar 8, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
OK but it still seems strange if the earth was warming by mans activity it would ever cool down at all. I'd expect it to continue to warm and the warming would accelerate NOT cool down.
The warming trend will accelerate as seen already.

Read my posts again. Cooling down is not mentioned with regard to the global climate change..
Ralph

Minneapolis, MN

#24250 Mar 8, 2013
joey wrote:
so all you global warming nuts should leave and go to another planet and take gore with you.gores millions made from this hoax has turned into a billion plus but you aholes still suck his ass?yes,you are the liberals that believe what you hear from the lame stream media?
The sad thing is "people" want a messiah to worship.

Obama is one Gore is another. Sheepie blindly follow them off the proverbial cliff.

When were citizens transformed into mindless sheepie, trusting a loud mouthed opinionated jerk?
SpaceBlues

United States

#24251 Mar 8, 2013
From the referenced article[*]..

What would serious steps entail?

According to the Meinshausen paper, up to 80 per cent of our known reserve of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.

“The carbon budget implied by the 2 C limit,” Jaccard wrote,“means that we cannot be making new investments that expand the carbon polluting infrastructure.

“This means no expansion of oilsands, no new pipelines (like Keystone and Northern Gateway) and no expansion of coal mines and coal ports.

“This does not mean shutting down the oilsands. It does not mean shutting coal mines. These will continue to operate for decades. But you cannot be expanding carbon polluting production and also prevent 2 C or even 4 C temperature increase. The industry knows this, but prefers its ads telling us about the jobs and revenue from expanding the polluting infrastructure.”

But the remedies needed, Rees suggested, might have to be even more draconian than that.

“Even the International Energy Agency and the World Bank have recently conceded that even if present agreed-upon policies were implemented, the world is likely headed to four Celsius degrees warming by the end of the century. This would render much of the most heavily populated parts of the earth uninhabitable ...”

*
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Pete+M...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#24252 Mar 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not an expert of your state.
Actually your not an expert on anything. Well my bad you are an expert on Scientific science fiction and scare tactics.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24253 Mar 9, 2013
WTF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! You are one angry person. I was just answering your question on how Al Gore could get scientist to go along with global warming. I just presented a plausible option.
Do you not agree that some scientist like other people can be influenced by money?
Yes, the intractable ignorance and stubborn denial of loons like you angers people who have children and grandchildren but don't have their heads in their arse.

Now listen up, you simpleton:

IT'S NOT PLAUSIBLE AT ALL!

First, the science behind global warming was a century in the making before Al Gore was born. Al Gore didn't invent it, you snivelinjg 'tard; he just made an effin' documentary! He publicized science that was already there. Stop eating up all the manufactured ignorance that the denial industry feeds you.

Second, you have to be dumber than box of rocks to think that thousands of scientists all over the planet can all be somehow be nearly unanimous in participating in a global conspiracy for which there is ZERO evidence, no incentives (in spite of denier lies), and the need to falsify billions of data points and calculations, and coordinate the corrupted peer review of thousands of papers.

Third, you still ignored the dead-obvious funding of the astroturfed (manufactured) denier movement. A handful of fossil fuel industries and wealthy stock holders fund ~40 separate, bogus "think tanks" and buy politicians by the bus load. Can you at least acknowledge these facts or does your dogmatic belief system prevent it?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24254 Mar 9, 2013
Capt Crunch wrote:
<quoted text>
When science is posited as God the Omniscient, it will eventually gather a following of True Beleivers , fanatics who will slash their backs with hook embedded leather thongs to prove the verity of their cause. Admittedly there is an amount of insanity involved, but that is a necessary ingredient of a fanatical movement. So, be not disturbed, this also shall pass.
Ah yes, you've made it very clear where you're coming from. You clearly know that you're using fallacious rhetoric and know that your position is a loser. I say that because of the transparent nature of your transference and because it's far from the first time you've tried to equate acceptance of the scientific method and rational conclusions from observation as faith-based in a DISHONEST attempt to equate it with your actual faith-based science denial (or your dishonest claim to deny it).

I suppose, considering all of the religious imagery you invoked, that you're a religious nutter who feels he must reject science because he thinks reality is contradicting his dogmatic belief system. Are you one of those that thinks God would never let it happen, so the science must be the devil's lies?

Your post was free of anything but bluster. All of the vast science points to the accepted (by competent, rational, honest people) conclusion. If you want to post your brain droppings here with any hope of convincing competent, rational, honest people that it's all wrong, you need to POST SOME SCIENCE that supports your position.

Not only can't you do so, you just made it clear that you don;t think it necessary. You're openly anti-science. if that's all you got, then shut off the computer that science created and go live in a cave. A--hole!
SpaceBlues

United States

#24255 Mar 9, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Actually your not an expert on anything. Well my bad you are an expert on Scientific science fiction and scare tactics.
Hey stalker, LOL.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24256 Mar 9, 2013
Capt Crunch wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankfully, my comphrehesion keeps e from accepting everything that is proclaimrd to be THE TRUTH as an accurate description of reality. I accept Platos description of reality much more readily Tham of those whose need to write a paper exceeds their knowledge.
How do you know that the science doesn't support the conclusions?

What's your qualifications to assess the science?

How much of the primary sources have you studied?

Assuming (a VERY good assumption) that you have no qualifications at all, none of the required knowledge or skills, and have never once accessed the real science, we can safely conclude that you have no RATIONAL reasons keeping you from accepting the truth.

In fact, you have accepted THE TRUTH that science is all an impossible conspiracy based purely on acceptance of non-scientific, often fallacious, and deeply dishonest arguments fed to you by those you accept as authority figures. That is the nature of your kind. Your worldview is more based upon authoritarianism than on evidence-based knowledge.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24257 Mar 9, 2013
Ralph wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so earth is being warmed by human activity.
So why has the Minnesota winter been colder than normal?
It's easy to claim the earth is burning up getting hotter each year then how can it magically cool down this year?
"The weather is cold today somewhere, so I, a know-nothing, reject 150 yrs of science and question the conclusions of a million PHD's about long-term climate trends."

Just the MOST RETARDED NON-ARGUMENT IN THE DENIER BAG OF BS.

How can anyone have participated in this conversation for any length of time and still be this jaw-droppingly ignorant and illogical?

I have to ask: Why do the other nutters NEVER speak up and tell those who repeat the long list of astoundingly stupid, bumper sticker class, denialist idiocies that they're wrong?

Could it be because they gladly accept any argument, no matter of retarded or obviously wrong, as long as it's on their side? Because they're dogmatic science deniers intent on defeating science regardless rather than trying to find out what is actually true?

Hmmm?

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.

Robbinsdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can't manage the gov & NOT honest or trustworthy (Nov '13) 1 hr LIbEralS 524
Vote for Hillary 15 hr Cruel Hillary 8
the NON affordable care act (Oct '13) Sat LIbEralS 280
Trump for President, He will win. watch Aug 26 Cary Cottle 5
Review: MXT Associates (Aug '11) Aug 25 Sarah 10
News Man gets 15 years for raping girl, 16, in St. P... (Aug '08) Aug 22 Sos 35
Welcome To Minnesota Mr. Trump Aug 20 LIbEralS 3

Robbinsdale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Robbinsdale Mortgages