Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36891 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.

Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24973 Apr 5, 2013
If you had any integrity, you'd have said the same to Phd.... Sorry Brain Gone, when the shoe fits...

No point in rehashing your dusty old diatribes, you're a dumbass....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24974 Apr 5, 2013
Oil and natural gas constantly seeps out of natural reservoirs, coal is exposed and weathered by erosion. If we don't use fossil fuel, they'll contaminate the environment without providing the energy we need.

Fortunately, life on Earth evolved to survive planetary differentiation, the process where lighter elements rise to the surface and denser materials sink back down.

Fear of fossil fuel shows a lack of faith in science.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24975 Apr 6, 2013
Biig_Gzoof is getting a lot of attention.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24976 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I often ignore people who can't engage in rational arguments. Nobody has to put up with abusive, insulting and bullying posts.
Correction: Your prepping to ignore my very rational arguments with this as your excuse, you transparent efftard. Everyone knows it. You lie, backpedal, and are as abusive, insulting and bullying as any of the rational and honest posters.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24977 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^More name calling. If reason fails, irrational ad hominem fallacies is all that remains.
Substantive response - utterly lacking.

I accept your concession inre: that post.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24978 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Insults detract from content.
Response to arguments - nowhere to be found.

I accept your concession inre: that post as well.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24979 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Calling people on their irrationality shows you care.
Another total evasion = yet another concession that you can't defend your position. I accept it as well.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24980 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no way to differentiate fossil carbon from natural sources .... Without experiments, there's no way to know ..
RealClimate has a post explaining how climatologists can say with some certainty that the observed increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere comes from human activity. The IPCC report goes into detail about many of the lines of reasoning, but RealClimate adds another scientific argument. Let me break it down:

Carbon atoms come in three different isotopes (types based on the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus): carbon-12 (referred to by chemists as 12C); carbon-13 (13C); and carbon-14 (14C), best known for its use in archeological dating. The proportion of these three types is well-studied, in large part because of the radiocarbon dating work. Historically, carbon-12 makes up the vast majority of carbon atoms, carbon-13 makes up just 1.11%, and carbon-14 atoms are just 1 in 1 trillion among the carbon atoms out there.

An important fact to keep in mind: in fossil fuels, there are fewer carbon-13 atoms relative to carbon-12 atoms than in the atmosphere. This is because carbon-13 weighs just a tiny amount (one neutron's worth) more than carbon-12 and, over time, some physical processes can filter out the different isotopes.

Research attempting to improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating has come up with a detailed record of variations in the proportionate levels of carbon over the last 10,000 years. At no point in the last 10,000 years has the relative proportion of 13C in the atmosphere been as low as it is now. Furthermore, the ratio of 13C to 12C starts to decrease (as measured in tree ring data, ice core data, and coral data) at the exact same time that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide starts to rise, around 1850. The total change in proportion is about 0.15%, a seemingly-small number, but one which is huge in terms of isotope variation in nature. The last glacial-to-interglacial change in the ice core records, which took many thousands of years, saw only a 0.03% change. Labs can measure variations in 13C to 12C as low as 0.005%.

In short, then:

In the mid-19th century, humans began using increasing amounts of fossil fuels (which have a lower proportion of 13C than the atmosphere);
In the mid-19th century, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide began to rise in a way that exceeded historical variability;
In the mid-19th century, the proportion of 13C in the atmosphere began to drop relative to 12C.

The most reasonable explanation is therefore that the increase in atmospheric carbon came primarily from the increased use of fossil fuels.

But a somewhat simpler argument also demonstrates that the rising CO2 concentrations are due to human activities: fossil fuel carbon is basically devoid of 14C. 14C, or "radiocarbon", radioactively decays (with a half-life of about 5700 years) and is essentially absent in 200-300 million year old oil and coal.

And guess what? Measurements of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere show that a big share of the rising CO2 levels are devoid of 14C. So these emissions are from *old* carbon. Really, really old. Can anyone say *fossil* fuels?

Another nail in the coffin.

But remember that not all of the rising CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. A lot (about 1-2 billion tons of carbon per year) the emission are also due to land use practices, such as deforestation and land degradation. Compared to the ~6 billion tons of carbon burned in fossil fuels each year, it is still relatively small. But land use used to be a bigger part of the carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and was actually larger than the fossil fuel emissions until the 1950s.

The 13C argument is reasonable too, but the 14C to be convincing as well.

That leaves only this new RETARDED claim - "Oil seeps from natural reservoirs ... and their isotope signatures are the same."

EVIDENCE THAT SEEPS ARE A TRILLION X'S BIGGER?
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24981 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Man made CO2 emissions from cultivating yeast has increased since humans discovered the effects of alcohol a million years ago. Yeast produced carbon dioxide as dough rises to make bread the same way it dumps CO2 into the atmosphere when fermented beverages are made.
The carbon yeast pumps into the air has a different isotope ratio from the carbon burned when a surgeon uses fossil fuel energy to help save the life of your child or the carbon freed into the air when your mom cooks your family dinner. In either case, that CO2 enters the atmosphere to help keep our climate from freezing.
ROTFLMAO!

OMFG, Lyin' Brian! You've outdone yourself here. A logical analysis of this to disentangle all of the interwoven fallacies and rhetorical tricks (ham-fisted as they are) would be 10X as long as your comment.

All that this comment of yours does is show how you deserve ev ery insult that comes your way. I ask again, who pays you to look like the world's most retarded liar merely to sow confusion on this subject? There is no other rational explanation for why you would do as you do.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24982 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not my claim, I've said we can't know if it's possible to mitigate climate change because it hasn't been experimentally tested, just like you can't know if the used car you're buying will work unless you take it for a test drive.
It doesn't matter if we're mitigating the effects fossil fuel use, mitigating against the effects of destroying a natural CO2 sink or mitigating against emissions from decayed biomass because there's no way to know if it can help without tests.
.
<quoted text>^^^They use insults, ad hominem arguments, because they can't deal with rational arguments.
Yes, it absolutely was your claim. I won't bother reposting your BS. We all know that you're a liar and willing to look like the biggest liar that ever lived, so reposting it will not result in you suddenly changing into a moral, rational debater.

So you distract from being caught in your lie - a lie used to try to defend a BS argument - by repeating the BS argument. However, you still have not supported said BS argument, nor have you responded to previous rebuttals of said BS argument.

We've performed this experiment - we added 100+ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.(Or do you want to try to lie about that, to, a-hole?) The results are in. Not surprisingly, the results were consistent with the basic science known for centuries.

Now, you refuse to acknowledge that this experiment has been done; demanding an experiment wherein the CO2 is reduced some similar amount and then wait for the results. Apparently, you think it's possible that the law of cause and effect needs to be proven true. Is that your argument, jackbag?

Besides your demand being RETARDED, it is BEYOND RETARDED because that action goes far beyond those that your entire reason for living appears to be arguing against!

And the insults are earned, dipsquat. They're exclamation points following each of your deceits and logical travesties.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24983 Apr 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Oil and natural gas constantly seeps out of natural reservoirs, coal is exposed and weathered by erosion. If we don't use fossil fuel, they'll contaminate the environment without providing the energy we need.
Fortunately, life on Earth evolved to survive planetary differentiation, the process where lighter elements rise to the surface and denser materials sink back down.
Fear of fossil fuel shows a lack of faith in science.
Behold! Behold Lyin' Brian's latest RETARDED claim. Of course, he makes it by implication only, as those who sow confusion are wont to do. But, let's not let his weaseling interfere with illustrating how desperate the jackbag is to find any way, no matter how RETARDED, to DENY the truth.

Lyin' Brian is now claiming that his denial is justified because just maybe natural oil and gas seeps and coal erosion (all of which he assumes are oxidized as well - with no supporting argument - of course) are LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT MINED, PUMPED, REFINED, AND BURNED!

That's right folks, Lyin' Brian's latest desperate gambit is to throw out a ridiculous, unsupported implication that the science should be ignored because seeps might be a trillion times larger than science says they are.

The world burns 3 cubic miles of petroleum every year. Lyin' Brian thinks that most likely there's 10 cubic miles of undetected oil seeps or some such RETARDED excuse for denial.

Stick a fork in this denier scumbag. He's done.

Or is he? I suspect that he's paid well enough that he'll be back willing to look like his IQ's in the single digits.
Kyle

Rensselaer, IN

#24984 Apr 6, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Biig_Gzoof is getting a lot of attention.
I suspect that you're implying that we (I) are giving him too much attention because that's what trolls are all about. Point taken.

However, I believe that Lyin' Brian has left more than enough clues to being a paid disinformationist. I've allowed Lyin' Brian to keep desperately trying to maintain his ruse. In the process, he's made a string of outrageously improbable claims (by implication) in order to do so.

Lyin' Brian is doing what science cannot do - co0nvince the scientifically illiterate of the truth of climate science's findings. He's doing so by illustrating the vacuity and deceit of the denier arguments in ways that any fool can easily understand.

All I do was hand him the rope. He hung himself.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#24985 Apr 6, 2013
Excellent work, Kyle.

Congratulations.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24986 Apr 7, 2013
Kyle wrote:
...We've performed this experiment - we added 100+ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.(Or do you want to try to lie about that, to, a-hole?) The results are in. Not surprisingly, the results were consistent with the basic science known for centuries.
Now, you refuse to acknowledge that this experiment has been done; demanding an experiment wherein the CO2 is reduced some similar amount and then wait for the results. Apparently, you think it's possible that the law of cause and effect needs to be proven true. Is that your argument, jackbag? Besides your demand being RETARDED, it is BEYOND RETARDED because that action goes far beyond those that your entire reason for living appears to be arguing against! And the insults are earned, dipsquat. They're exclamation points following each of your deceits and logical travesties.
Learn the difference between an experiment and history, experiments are pre planned, controlled and have the goal of testing a theory. What's the most compelling experiment you've seen?

gcavema posted these:
http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Mater...

One conclusion reads:
"This experiment does not claim exactness of results, but it does show that one should not use the motor cars so much. Whoever wishes for a stabile climate should push his car!"

Check them out, maybe you'll learn ad hoc fossil fuel use over time since the industrial revolution isn't an experiment. I'm impressed with the data's extremely low CO2 temperature effect.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24987 Apr 7, 2013
So, do the experiment ALREADY, if we do it, you'll just whine....

Poor Brain Gone, games and more games...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#24988 Apr 7, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
So, do the experiment ALREADY, if we do it, you'll just whine.... Poor Brain Gone, games and more games...
I'm not advocating treating the global climate; I've got nothing to test. Besides, I'm not a scientist.

I'm just asking, what's the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation you've found? Until I find one, I'm going to wait before helping man made catastrophic climate change alarmism.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#24989 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not advocating treating the global climate; I've got nothing to test. Besides, I'm not a scientist.
I'm just asking, what's the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation you've found? Until I find one, I'm going to wait before helping man made catastrophic climate change alarmism.
Bria its not necessary t tate the obvious, we all know that you are not a scientist, and that you have absolutely no clue about science.

But rst assured, all scientists studying climate change know what the cause is and what the consequences will be if we don't change our behaviour. One does ot need to drink a quart of boubon to know what the effects will be.

The sad partabout the whole thing is that we may already be past the tipping point.
PC Free Zone

Minneapolis, MN

#24990 Apr 7, 2013
'The sad partabout the whole thing is that we may already be past the tipping point.'

LOL, that's what the cave men said!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24991 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not advocating treating the global climate; I've got nothing to test. Besides, I'm not a scientist.
I'm just asking, what's the most compelling experiment for climate change mitigation you've found? Until I find one, I'm going to wait before helping man made catastrophic climate change alarmism.
So, you want something for nothing, you're unwilling to do ?? Yep, teanagger...
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#24992 Apr 7, 2013
When you have no intelligent comment, troll...

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min Logic Analysis 25,345
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min VetnorsGate 1,523,703
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 7 min spud 418
News Border Wall Presents Funding Challenges in El Paso 14 min Hector 32
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 15 min Wondering 103
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min Go Trump 240,429
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 26 min Lawrence Wolf 279
News White House refuses to hand over documents to F... 53 min Lawrence Wolf 218
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 1 hr Chilli J 77
More from around the web