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
23,801 - 23,820 of 32,501 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25136 Apr 16, 2013
Mitthead.....
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#25137 Apr 16, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Mitthead.....
Fat Obamabot...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25139 Apr 17, 2013
Mitthead.....
LIbEralS

Saint Paul, MN

#25140 Apr 17, 2013
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25141 Apr 17, 2013
A single statistician, with an opinion !!! What a MORON !!!
Consistent

Grantsburg, WI

#25142 Apr 17, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
A single statistician, with an opinion !!! What a MORON !!!
Damn that Uncle Daddy!

"Neurotic anxiety is the unconscious worry that we will lose control of the id's urges, resulting in punishment for inappropriate behavior."

(To illustrate your shortcomings as an Illiterate, let me type a "Classic Slewsie'ism"....."LM AOROFL!~Fu")

il·lit·er·ate [ih-lit-er-it]

adjective

1. unable to read and write: an illiterate group.

2.having or demonstrating very little or no education.

3.showing lack of culture, especially in language and literature.

4.displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular field

noun

5.an illiterate person.

(We value the perspectives of yours, the Psychotics Perspective, written illegibly in Slewese')

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25144 Apr 17, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.
Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.
BjØrn Lomborg makes good sense, and he has studies and tests that back up his ideas. Very refreshing change from climate change mitigation.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25145 Apr 17, 2013
Like ANY Danish "statistician" is better than hundreds of American scientists ??? Love your analogy, logic not so much, moron.

Cute, the spamming morons found each other...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25147 Apr 18, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Like ANY Danish "statistician" is better than hundreds of American scientists ??? Love your analogy, logic not so much, moron. Cute, the spamming morons found each other...
Siegfried Fred Singer is an American scientist skeptical of global warming; all the opposition isn't Danish.

The sun controls climate, not man made greenhouse gases..
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25148 Apr 18, 2013
Like ANY Danish "statistician" is better than hundreds of American scientists ??? Love your analogy, logic not so much, moron. Cute, the spamming morons found each other...

Any of the opposition RESPECTED ?? Nope...

You're a dumb spammer, which is really sad....
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#25149 Apr 18, 2013
LIbEralS wrote:
many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.
What many uncertainties?

That correction. That would be the TYPO that proved all global warming research was wrong?

You wish.
Obama-hoodwinked -YOU

Minneapolis, MN

#25150 Apr 18, 2013
Damn it'scold and snowy out there.

A year ago it was warmer than average and it PROVED Gloal Warming was upon us.

NOW it's COLDER than average and it's NO caused by Global Cooling.
Dr Ron Paul

Seattle, WA

#25152 Apr 18, 2013
Obama-hoodwinked-YOU wrote:
Damn it'scold and snowy out there.
A year ago it was warmer than average and it PROVED Gloal Warming was upon us.
NOW it's COLDER than average and it's NO caused by Global Cooling.
Humidity in the Earth's atmosphere is on the rise.4 More moisture in the air can mean more intense rain or snowfall. When the temperatures are warm, there has been an increase in heavy rain for the most extreme events of the year5 that can cause significant flooding and damage to homes, roads, and sewage systems. When temperatures hover below freezing, blizzards can occur more often—particularly in the Dakotas and western Minnesota.6 These storms cause major transportation delays, lengthy power outages, school and business closings, and sometimes collapsed roofs, including the Metrodome roof in December 2010.7

Monthly snowfall totals of more than 15 inches (38 centimeters) have occurred almost two and a half times more often in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area since the Metrodome was built than in the 50 years prior to its construction.8
The December 2010 blizzard in the Twin Cities brought particularly heavy, wet snow, with a snow–to–liquid ratio of 9 to 1, compared with the December–to–February average of 15 to 1.9 Heavier snow occurs with warmer winter temperatures and a ready supply of moisture.10
As much as 80 percent of all snowstorms of more than 6 inches in the United States in the twentieth century occurred during winters that had above–average temperatures and were wetter than normal.11
The economic impact of winter storms has been rising rapidly, reflecting higher–intensity
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25153 Apr 18, 2013
i hoodwinked u wrote:
Damn it'scold and snowy out there.
Arctic temperatures above the 80th parallel have been above normal for ~180+ out of the last 230 days. That proves that global warming has arrived.

Actually, that is y u r cold. Extra energy AGW warm fronts push hard into the Arctic, warming the NP. Simultaneously, Arctic cold fronts are pushed south, onto populated southern areas. Arctic cold fronts can be pushed as far south as Mexico, Central America, China & India.

Temperatures are in the minus mid-twenties degC. on the north shores of Hudson Bay. You should be cold. However, temperatures from the southern tip of Greenland to northern Russia are above freezing & as high as +17degC.(+63degF).
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#25154 Apr 18, 2013
Dr Ron Paul wrote:
Humidity in the Earth's atmosphere is on the rise.
An excellent post throughout!
Concentrating on the humidity however:

Increasing amounts of infra-red energy absorbing non-phase change GHGs CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, SF6 & others, control AND INCREASE the amount of infra-red energy absorbing, PHASE change water vapor in the atmosphere.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25155 Apr 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I wrote, CO2 is a climate driver, I don't know if it's significant or which way it drives climate, but CO2 is a climate force...
Yo, Lyin' Brian. You forfeited your right to fling this poo with your first few hundred dishonest concessions. Especially the one - repeated yet again - about the retarded, repeatedly destroyed, infantile "experiment" BS.

No further response required. You lost and you're to blame because dishonesty is how you lost.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25156 Apr 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> .. blah, blah,.. eugenics, evolutionary mitigation. Blah, blah,.. I'm especially concerned about carbon taxes and regulations. Blah, blah,.
. They both believe in an end of world event and make policy decisions based on that belief. Blah, blah,.. Every customer, vendor, truck driver, investor and employee profits from fossil fuel, it brings billions in taxes to our governments. Blah, blah,..
One giant steaming heap of Argument from Consequences.

And 100% science-free, too.

Don't forget - it appears to have slipped your mind - that I presented multiple scientific arguments that clearly pin the warming on CO2. You owe a SCIENTIFIC response.
Kyle

Knox, IN

#25157 Apr 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>BjØrn Lomborg makes good sense, and he has studies and tests that back up his ideas. Very refreshing change from climate change mitigation.
No science. Just played with the numbers. Ask Bjorn to explain the warming trends by latitude, season, and diurnally, as well as the strospheric cooling (that you bald-faced lied about) as something other that the GHE.

We'll anxiously await your SCIENTIFIC response.

When you fail to do so, then ask Bjorn for the SCIENCE that shows it to be caused by a GHG other than CO2. We know that it's not water vapor because it can only be a dependent variable. For idiots like you, I'll explain:

H2O covers 70% of our planet to an average depth of 2 miles. The H2O vapor in the atmosphere is negligible in comparison. In other words, there is a massive source/sink such that there can never be a shortage of it; it will simply seek equilibrium under instantaneous conditions.

Since it is basic elementary school science that vapor pressure - and therefore absolute humidity - rises with increasing temperature, H2O vapor can only be a positive feedback of warming caused by another forcing function. This renders all denier arguments about water being the bigger source of the GHE arguments FOR strong CO2 warming. Just because you're too stupid or dishonest to realize or admit it doesn't change this simple fact.

No other GHG is a serious contender and we know it because the SCIENCE has been done. Hell, we can compute the precise responses of any material we want from first principles (quantum mechanics). Your ignorance is not an argument. If you want to claim that we just don't know if it's. CO2 or something else, then show us SCIENCE to support your claim.

Anything else I'd just another concession. I'd think you'd be tired of conceding by now, Lyin' Brian.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#25159 Apr 19, 2013
Kyle wrote:
No science. Just played with the numbers. Ask Bjorn to explain the warming trends by latitude, season, and diurnally, as well as the strospheric cooling (that you bald-faced lied about) as something other that the GHE.
We'll anxiously await your SCIENTIFIC response.
When you fail to do so, then ask Bjorn for the SCIENCE that shows it to be caused by a GHG other than CO2. We know that it's not water vapor because it can only be a dependent variable. For idiots like you, I'll explain:
H2O covers 70% of our planet to an average depth of 2 miles. The H2O vapor in the atmosphere is negligible in comparison. In other words, there is a massive source/sink such that there can never be a shortage of it; it will simply seek equilibrium under instantaneous conditions.
Since it is basic elementary school science that vapor pressure - and therefore absolute humidity - rises with increasing temperature, H2O vapor can only be a positive feedback of warming caused by another forcing function. This renders all denier arguments about water being the bigger source of the GHE arguments FOR strong CO2 warming. Just because you're too stupid or dishonest to realize or admit it doesn't change this simple fact.
No other GHG is a serious contender and we know it because the SCIENCE has been done. Hell, we can compute the precise responses of any material we want from first principles (quantum mechanics). Your ignorance is not an argument. If you want to claim that we just don't know if it's. CO2 or something else, then show us SCIENCE to support your claim.
Anything else I'd just another concession. I'd think you'd be tired of conceding by now, Lyin' Brian.
I agree with Lomborg, he does an accounting of the science. We're better off spending on disasters other than climate change mitigation. According to Lomborg, climate change mitigation is possible but expensive, infeasible. No experimental test shows him wrong.

Why are there no peer reviewed experiments testing climate change mitigation? Because climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change alarmism is pseudoscience.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25160 Apr 19, 2013
I agree with Lomborg, who says there's GW.

THANKS !!

Funny, you'd like to cherry pick which parts you like and demand a global experiment for the rest...

Poor Brain Gone, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Most people yawn at global warming; dona t get ... 15 min truth-facts 4
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr litesong 46,382
Swedes call out Jones on data availability (Mar '10) 5 hr litesong 126
No more pause: Warming will be non-stop from no... 6 hr The ADELAIDEAN 21
Antarctic coastal waters 'rising faster' 7 hr SpaceBlues 4
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 8 hr JMWinPR 27,025
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 15 hr Brian_G 3,333
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••