Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 35524 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.

joey

Mountain View, CA

#35148 Jul 12, 2014
The planet is cooling. Its borrowing some cold from the poles to cool down the rest of the planet. Once that is done ice will return. F*ck politicians and the horse they road in on.
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#35149 Jul 12, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
<quoted text>
There's another 20%, of which you are a member, who wouldn't know science from a hole in the ground.
Hint: science isn't determined by the people or by polls.
So, are you then also saying that 80% of the country is science savy?
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#35150 Jul 12, 2014
Seattle Slime wrote:
<quoted text>
And real science is not determines by college test passers who devote their career to securing grants for pseudo science, nor for the gullible beleivers in faulty computer predictions.
Gosh what an ignorant mf'er.
redeemer

Saint Paul, MN

#35151 Jul 12, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you then also saying that 80% of the country is science savy?
It's funny how baggers think they know it all about everything,even when their wronger then two left shoes/

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35152 Jul 13, 2014
Funny how there's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal. That's how you can tell climate mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience.
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#35153 Jul 13, 2014
Putting a price tag on the 2 degree Celsius climate target:

In order to maintain a temperature increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the world would need to invest between $30 and $75 trillion in new energy technology between now and 2050.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/...
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#35154 Jul 13, 2014
Seattle Slime wrote:
<quoted text>
And real science is not determines by college test passers who devote their career to securing grants for pseudo science, nor for the gullible beleivers in faulty computer predictions.
Go finish a high school. Hope they will let you in.

I won't edit your post. Take it to your elementary school for correction.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#35155 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>One hundred and ten million tons of human-made CO2 are added daily into our breathing atmosphere, You lie at your own peril.

Hey read this long paper.. it will answer all your possible questions.

We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ~500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ~1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2°C global warming, would spur “slow” feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4°C with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.

P.S. It is in PLUS ONE. Eighteen auhors have done a monumental job. Look for human-made such as:

The long-term global warming trend is predominantly a forced climate change caused by increased human-made atmospheric gases, mainly CO2 [1].

Earth’s history reveals sea level changes of as much as a few meters per century, even though the natural climate forcings changed much more slowly than the present human-made forcing
.
Vulnerabilities would be magnified by the speed of human-made climate change and the potentially large sea level rise [115].

Local human-made stresses add to the global warming and acidification effects, all of these driving a contraction of 1–2% per year in the abundance of reef-building corals [39]. Loss of the three-dimensional coral reef frameworks has consequences for all the species that depend on them. Loss of these frameworks also has consequences for the important roles that coral reefs play in supporting fisheries and protecting coastlines from wave stress. Consequences of lost coral reefs can be economically devastating for many nations, especially in combination with other impacts such as sea level rise and intensification of storms.

The detailed temporal and geographical response of the climate system to the rapid human-made change of climate forcings is not well-constrained by empirical data, because there is no faithful paleoclimate analog.

Ultimately, however, human-made climate change is more a matter of morality than a legal issue. Broad public support is probably needed to achieve the changes needed to phase out fossil fuel emissions. As with the issue of slavery and civil rights, public recognition of the moral dimensions of human-made climate change may be needed to stir the public’s conscience to the point of action.
Well, this is worthwile to repeat.

P.S. The denier in response has quit possibly after comprehending it, LOL. No reply yet.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#35156 Jul 13, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Putting a price tag on the 2 degree Celsius climate target:
In order to maintain a temperature increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the world would need to invest between $30 and $75 trillion in new energy technology between now and 2050.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/...
The earlier, the cheaper, huh?

Did you comprehend my earlier post?
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#35157 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>The earlier, the cheaper, huh?
Did you comprehend my earlier post?
You posted earlier? I must have missed it.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#35158 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, this is worthwile to repeat.
P.S. The denier in response has quit possibly after comprehending it, LOL. No reply yet.
Yes indeed do repeat yourself.

It shows how little you actually follow your "settled" "consensus" "crisis" 'science'.

What a dupe.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#35159 Jul 13, 2014
LIbEralS wrote:
Putting a price tag on the 2 degree Celsius climate target:
In order to maintain a temperature increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the world would need to invest between $30 and $75 trillion in new energy technology between now and 2050.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/...
Where did you get those numbers? Please tell us.

Thanks.
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#35161 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Where did you get those numbers? Please tell us.
Thanks.
Why do you care?

You don't act as if it's the "crisis" your "science" says it is. All you're going to do is spew out more CO2 with follow up posts.

OTOH, maybe you're adherence to the "settled" 'science' is just a way for a pathetic nerdlinger to feel a part of something important.

Either way, what a dupe.
litesong

Everett, WA

#35162 Jul 13, 2014
ratdownthemiddledownwronggully wrote:
.....still having problems with your links, boy?
I can read them. Sorry, your 'puter is putz.
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#35163 Jul 13, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Funny how there's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation published in a peer reviewed journal. That's how you can tell climate mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate disruption is pseudoscience.
Where's your evidence?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35164 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Where's your evidence?
if there was one....you'd post it, fuquetard!

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35166 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Well, this is worthwile to repeat.
P.S. The denier in response has quit possibly after comprehending it, LOL. No reply yet.
worthwhile for who? it was idiotic spam before....and idiotic spam now.

stop emitting co2 if you believe what you claim, son.

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35167 Jul 13, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Go finish a high school. Hope they will let you in.
I won't edit your post. Take it to your elementary school for correction.
'go finish a high school' next sentence reads like an interrogative without a question mark.

you never saw a high school classroom, did you, boy?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35168 Jul 13, 2014
joey wrote:
The planet is cooling. Its borrowing some cold from the poles to cool down the rest of the planet. Once that is done ice will return. F*ck politicians and the horse they road in on.
Joey, I have to agree!!! Even if AGW wasn't a political hoax and pseudoscience.....why would any rational person regardless of party affiliation think government could alter events in the atmosphere when they can't manage things on the ground?

“BET DAP”

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#35169 Jul 13, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet he still believes Mann won a Nobel.
SPACED OUT BLUES wants to believe it.....but I beat it out of him!!! He still won't apologize for his mistake.....which means he has no integrity or intellectual honesty.

Somehow.....I am not surprised.

His kind are all the same. I feel sorry for people like that. Just a little. Maybe not so much. Wait.....fuque 'em!

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min USAsince1680 1,382,505
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Rogue Scholar 05 214,284
News Trump's Supreme Court list underscores election... 23 min slick willie expl... 219
News Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's... 29 min positronium 110
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 35 min Jay 224,703
News US gives directive to schools on transgender ba... 13 hr Three Days Paleo 10
News Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) Mon Samuel Clemens jr 46
More from around the web