Global warming 'undeniable,' scientis...

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

There are 36895 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.

“you know i know”

Since: Oct 07

denver

#35816 Aug 27, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Mars has ~ the same atmospheric CO2 as Earth. Being 141.6 million miles from the sun, as compared to 92.5 million miles for the Earth, Mars gets ~ 0.4 times the solar energy as the Earth gets per square foot.
perhaps you lunatics should switch to globull warming on Mars?

Any SUV's been spotted there?
2 posts removed

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35819 Aug 28, 2014
Mothra wrote:
Surprise! Glaciers appearing in Scotland
British Botanists conducting a Summer survey of Scotland’s tallest mountain, Ben Nevis, have been stunned to find evidence of recently formed multi-year ice fields, areas of compacted snow, some of which weigh hundreds of tons.
So what ? Hundreds of tons discovered on Ben Nevis while Greenland and South pole ice sheets loosing 300 millions tons a year.
These British Botanists must suffer Alzheimer, late winter Britain suffered record snowfalls.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35820 Aug 28, 2014
harmonious wrote:
perhaps you lunatics should switch to globull warming on Mars?
Any SUV's been spotted there?
maybe a couple of Science Utility Vehicules

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#35821 Aug 28, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Mars has ~ the same atmospheric CO2 as Earth. Being 141.6 million miles from the sun, as compared to 92.5 million miles for the Earth, Mars gets ~ 0.4 times the solar energy as the Earth gets per square foot.
That didn't answer my question
2 posts removed
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#35824 Aug 28, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"Science" denier!

Hypocrite!

I do love holding warmists to their own standards.

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35825 Aug 28, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Science" denier!
Hypocrite!
I do love holding warmists to their own standards.
LOL
You are out of your cotton-picking mind. What science do we deny?

You keep posting this garbage without any truth content.

Dismissed.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35826 Aug 28, 2014
Sangelia wrote:
<quoted text>
Plants need CO2. Animals including humans are in many ways vital to the existence of plants. By us breathing out what they need to take in.
Bacteria living in unlit caves need poisonous hydrogen sulfide. It is vital to their existence; they eat it and create sulfuric acid.

It's probably wise for humans to create more hydrogen sulfide so the bacteria can create more acid for our batteries.

You are a moron.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35827 Aug 28, 2014
scirocco wrote:
<quoted text>to another poster:

That didn't answer my question
What is the answer?
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#35828 Aug 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>
You are out of your cotton-picking mind. What science do we deny?
You keep posting this garbage without any truth content.
Dismissed.
The "science" you deny is that which also makes you a hypocrite.

Your "science" is all about reducing CO2 emissions, but all that "science" you cite hasn't curtailed your posts one bit. And you know that each one creates more CO2.

Thus you "deny" your own "science".

Which makes you a hypocrite.

Understand?

You really are pathetic. Asking a question then "dismissing" the subject prior to an answer. But what else can we expect from a "science" DENIER and HYPOCRITE.

btw, "Truth content"? Seriously? You think that phrase is used appropriately? Quit using big words and phrases outside your vocabulary. It makes you look even dumber.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#35829 Aug 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled new proposed regulations that aim to force power plants to cut their emissions by as much 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. The EPA estimates the rule will cost approximately $5.5 billion in 2020, vs. net climate and health "benefits" of $26 billion to $45 billion to the economy.
Carbon pollution from power plants accounted for 33% of the U.S.' total greenhouse gas emissions in 2011, according to the EPA . The U.S.' carbon emissions have already fallen by about 10% since 2005 , due in part both to the recession and the natural-gas boom. The new regulations are expected to be a cornerstone toward accomplishing Obama's 2009 pledge during international climate talks of reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.
P.S. President Barack Obama is working to secure an international agreement on climate change that would compel countries to slash their carbon emissions.
The New York Times' Coral Davenport reports the agreement would be a "politically binding" one that would "name and shame" countries into reducing their emissions of fossil fuels.
Even if the burning of all fossil fuels was stopped today, our planet already has 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system because of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.

This means Shanghai will be the next Atlantis by the end of the 22nd Century.

The good news? Dolphins will be content in their new home, a city once known as Miami.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35830 Aug 28, 2014
Captain Yesterday wrote:
That post was more of a stink-bomb, actually.:)
I remember when scientists experimented using real atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere to test the effect on global climate. The results were negative, with a small, local cooling effect under the ash cloud and the effect was temporary, lasting until the particles fell out of the air.

Man made global warming causes extreme cooling too, extreme weather of all kinds. Including more extremely beautiful weather so intense it hasn't been witnessed since the rise of man.

We are embarking on a new voyage of discovery, and the mitigators want to swim home. Most citizens have the commons sense not to elect politicians who want to mitigate climate change; now it is our turn. We like carbon dioxide emissions and believe greenhouse gases help keep Earth habitable, nothing succeeds like success.

Fossil fuel rule; if you enjoy sequestering CO2, plant a flower. You do your thing, I'll do mine.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35831 Aug 28, 2014
Wanderer2452 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the burning of all fossil fuels was stopped today, our planet already has 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system because of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
This means Shanghai will be the next Atlantis by the end of the 22nd Century.
The good news? Dolphins will be content in their new home, a city once known as Miami.
Actually, you are not accurate. Why do the scientists communicate in uncertainty numbers or encourage us to curtail fossil fuel burning?

Because it's not like what you claim. Planet Earth is not easy to own or control.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35832 Aug 28, 2014
Wanderer2452 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if the burning of all fossil fuels was stopped today, our planet already has 70 feet of sea-level rise baked into the system because of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
This means Shanghai will be the next Atlantis by the end of the 22nd Century.
The good news? Dolphins will be content in their new home, a city once known as Miami.
What you forget is the polluted air on the way.. will they be able to live in Shanghai?

Ask Londoners.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35833 Aug 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I remember when scientists experimented using real atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere to test the effect on global climate. The results were negative, with a small, local cooling effect under the ash cloud and the effect was temporary, lasting until the particles fell out of the air.
Man made global warming causes extreme cooling too, extreme weather of all kinds. Including more extremely beautiful weather so intense it hasn't been witnessed since the rise of man.
We are embarking on a new voyage of discovery, and the mitigators want to swim home. Most citizens have the commons sense not to elect politicians who want to mitigate climate change; now it is our turn. We like carbon dioxide emissions and believe greenhouse gases help keep Earth habitable, nothing succeeds like success.
Fossil fuel rule; if you enjoy sequestering CO2, plant a flower. You do your thing, I'll do mine.
Blah blah you are eating too many flowers.

The main lesson from the past atomic bomb explosions in our atmosphere is that they slowed down the global warming that was already raging.

Until science progressed sufficiently, people could not fathom the consequences of their laissez-faire that you still promote irresponsibly.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#35834 Aug 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Blah blah you are eating too many flowers.
^^^I blame the divide on public school education.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
The main lesson from the past atomic bomb explosions in our atmosphere is that they slowed down the global warming that was already raging.
There was no beneficial climate effect from past atmospheric nuclear blasts; it didn't cure Earth's raging fever. S.B. claims man made CO2 creates accumulated heat like so many million Hiroshima atomic bombs then real atomic bomb explosions in our atmosphere slow down global warming. What's not to love about man made global warming? Its yin and its yang, adds heat and slows down raging global warming all without the radioactivity and toxic nuclear debris.

I'm pro CO2 because more atmosphere means less radioactive debris and better protection from lifeless space. I'm pro fossil fuel because it works and we don't have time or energy to play games.

.
SpaceBlues wrote:
Until science progressed sufficiently, people could not fathom the consequences of their laissez-faire that you still promote irresponsibly.
The climate control policy S.B. promotes is worse than irresponsible, fathomless and unprogressive; it is government climate hegemony. I decline to be part of wacked climate treaties and party to climate legislation until experimental tests prove climate change mitigation won't cause more harm than good.

Science progresses by experiments testing theories or prototype climate control, not by consensus and climate law. Sue the EPA, you have the right to emit or sequester all the CO2 you please.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35835 Aug 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I remember when scientists experimented using real atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere to test the effect on global climate. The results were negative, with a small, local cooling effect under the ash cloud and the effect was temporary, lasting until the particles fell out of the air.
Arf, some more of "Brian_G" science fantasies

- The Armies directed atomic bombs explosions to check if they were as powerfull as calculated by scientists, and in the atmosphere precisely to AVOID lifting clouds of ashes in the atmosphere.

- Few tons of an A or an a H bomb materials blasted to dust in the atmosphere were not supposed to have any impact on atmosphere, that's an insignificant quantity.

- You are not supposed to cool atmosphere adding energy in it.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35836 Aug 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I'm pro CO2 because more atmosphere means less radioactive debris and better protection from lifeless space.
Arf, coal ash is NOT more radioactive than nuclear waste http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-...
Brian_G wrote:
I'm pro fossil fuel because it works and we don't have time or energy to play games.
I see, you are close to burn out

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35837 Aug 28, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
I see, you are close to burn out
over 48,000 topix comments is sure exhausting
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#35838 Aug 28, 2014
DonPanic wrote:
<quoted text>
Arf, some more of "Brian_G" science fantasies
- The Armies directed atomic bombs explosions to check if they were as powerfull as calculated by scientists, and in the atmosphere precisely to AVOID lifting clouds of ashes in the atmosphere.
- Few tons of an A or an a H bomb materials blasted to dust in the atmosphere were not supposed to have any impact on atmosphere, that's an insignificant quantity.
- You are not supposed to cool atmosphere adding energy in it.
Dust and clouds do that by blocking sunlight. If the results were transparent, we would not be arguing but sharing the data.

Perhaps the French are different and their explosion data are available from their many years of atmospheric bombs. Gosh.. they were still doing it until this century.

Do you know any links? Otherwise it looks like you receive similar classified defense as we do here.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#35839 Aug 28, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Dust and clouds do that by blocking sunlight. If the results were transparent, we would not be arguing but sharing the data.
Most destructive nuclear blast altitude do launch clouds of dusts in the atmosphere, thus masking sunrays and cooling atmosphere, unlike high altitude blasts such as these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_n...
SpaceBlues wrote:
Perhaps the French are different and their explosion data are available from their many years of atmospheric bombs. Gosh.. they were still doing it until this century.
Do you know any links? Otherwise it looks like you receive similar classified defense as we do here.
In France, the Army doesn't declassify nuclear defense datas, but share them with the US wich are closer partners in the Laser Mégajoule http://www-lmj.cea.fr/index-en.htm

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Democratic congressman has heart valve replacem... 2 min CodeTalker 78
News James Comey fired as FBI director 4 min Gotti 2,925
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 5 min Silent Echo 8,626
News Donald Trump not swayed by G-7 leaders on Paris... 8 min swampmudd 47
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 12 min democrat punisher 2,814
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 18 min CodeTalker 270,686
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 24 min Joy 1,536,434
News New 'Blue Lives Matter' laws raise concerns amo... 10 hr UMoronRACEUMAKEWO... 47
More from around the web