Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>WOW.
X agaunst??
LOL. Karma hates you.

Why would one expect the science deficient to understand? He would rather put his faith in a pujari.

DumBozo wrote:

Of course, it hasn't helped much with the market forces moving manufacturing to China. The market forces do not consider such things as pollution and global warming. China's CO2 emissions have grown to take 2011 world emissions to the all time highest level.

So why did you even bother to mention anything about a "decrease of CO2 emissions by the US" if it's not helping solve the perceived problem?

DumBozo wrote:

Why would one expect the science deficient to understand? He would rather put his faith in a pujari.

Does knowing you have an ally like Spambrat give you a nice warm feeling?
It's probably because you pissed yourself, grandpaw.

The "science deficient" are acceptable as long as they believe, is that what you're saying?

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Does knowing you have an ally like Spambrat give you a nice warm feeling?
It's probably because you pissed yourself, grandpaw.
The "science deficient" are acceptable as long as they believe, is that what you're saying?

The science knows you’re deficient by your useless babble. You never answered the question. I bet the warm feeling you get is that stuff running down your trousers. Now there looks like you pissed on your self.
Hold on folks get ready for the cut and paste answer from the dirtling. Don't disappoint us now put in some hate with your response.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>So why did you even bother to mention anything about a "decrease of CO2 emissions by the US" if it's not helping solve the perceived problem?

If your attention span was longer than a grunt, you would know that it was your comrade in ignorance, Mothra who made the initial comment.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Most global warming alarmists don't understand science. They think our CO2 emissions are some kind of experiment. When we burn fossil fuel to warm or cool our homes, drive someplace and produce goods and services, we aren't testing anything; we're just trying to survive.

How "turning our planet into venus" is consider us trying to survive.

Joyce Bros wrote:

CO2 is as natural is inhaling and exhaling all day long and the plants love it.
Hasnt climategate proved this was all a big hoax, warming is much preferred to cooling anyway as the planet thrives with heat and crops do as well.

You're correct!

One of the worst climatic events in the history of the United States was the "Dust Bowl" drought which devastated the United States central states region known as the Great Plains.

The Dust Bowl all but dried up an already depressed American economy in the 1930's creating millions of dollars in damages.

With modern technology, NASA now believes the Jet Stream was partly responsible for this drought. Scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center recently used a computer model and satellite data to examine climate over the past century.

In the study, cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures and warmer than normal tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures created ideal drought conditions due to the unstable sea surface temperatures.

(The result was dry air and high temperatures in the Midwest from about 1931 to 1939.)

http://weather.about.com/od/weatherfaqs/f/dus...

The Whiz wrote:

<quoted text>
He throws out senseless one-liners that make me pause. They sound intelligent and must be considered and researched.
It took me time to realize all his posts are random spam, a waste of time. He writes in loops and never provides relevant data.

Exactly. I used to treat him seriously, too, until I realized I was hearing the same nonsense non-stop.:)

Brainless_G wrote:

<quoted text>Most global warming alarmists don't understand science. They think our CO2 emissions are some kind of experiment. When we burn fossil fuel to warm or cool our homes, drive someplace and produce goods and services, we aren't testing anything; we're just trying to survive.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Keep thinking about this issue, you'll learn.

It's always funny when a pseudo-scientific troll like you pretends that it's others who "don't understand science." I'll bet you get quite the giggle when you write things like that.:)

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

I see, you do not understand, "observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".

Have you ever seen a compelling test of climate change mitigation? If so, please cite.

Maccoat wrote:

How "turning our planet into venus" is consider us trying to survive.

Nobody is "turning our planet into [V]enus", how would you move an entire planet closer to the sun?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody is "turning our planet into Venus", how would you move an entire planet closer to the [S]un?

Clueless??

By pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, you are effectively changing climate as if the Earth is moving closer to the Sun.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would one expect the science deficient to understand? He would rather put his faith in a pujari.

Nice way to put it.

He prefers crude language.

Dr Molina spoke at the ACS plenary session. Compared to the ozone depletion problem, his expertise, "climate change has become highly politicized and polarizing."

So:

1. Reduce our personal carbon footprint by 20 percent in the next year.

2. Stop subsidizing fossil fuels.

3. Mitigate politics and polarization.+

4. Shift towards more vegetarian diets.

5. Scientists better communicate the scientific facts underlying climate change.+

6. Scientists and engineers develop cheap alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.+

7. Reduce waste water treatment costs.*

8. Reduce costs to absorb CO2 from industrial activities.*

9. Manage the timing, magnitude, and speed of reservoir drawdowns in order to mitigate methane releases to the atmosphere.^

+ http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/591970/ ...

* http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/ ...

^ http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/44825

SpaceBlues wrote:

Clueless?? By pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, you are effectively changing climate as if the Earth is moving closer to the Sun.

It's more like moving the Earth uphill. Learn about the greenhouse effect:

[I]f the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.

It's like the rice and chessboard problem, in reverse.

If a chessboard were to have rice placed upon each square such that one grain were placed on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on (doubling the number of grains on each subsequent square), how many grains of wheat would be on the chessboard at the finish?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessb...

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Have you ever seen a compelling test of climate change mitigation? If so, please cite.

The test would to decrease the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Good idea. I'll bet the test would mitigate global warming. Let's try it.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>It's more like moving the Earth uphill. Learn about the greenhouse effect:
[I]f the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
It's like the rice and chessboard problem, in reverse.
If a chessboard were to have rice placed upon each square such that one grain were placed on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on (doubling the number of grains on each subsequent square), how many grains of wheat would be on the chessboard at the finish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessb...

Get out of here!!!

All nonsense you spew. Just because you list technical terms you don't speak science. You demonstrate how awfully ignorant you are.

You are hurting the brains of the world. STOP it!!!

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

The test would to decrease the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Good idea. I'll bet the test would mitigate global warming. Let's try it.

I'm not willing to bet our economy on your prototype climate change mitigation test. If you're wrong, we could do more harm than good.

Let's wait for the technology to catch up to your fantasy.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
The test would to decrease the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Good idea. I'll bet the test would mitigate global warming. Let's try it.

I second it!

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>It's more like moving the Earth uphill. Learn about the greenhouse effect:
[I]f the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
It's like the rice and chessboard problem, in reverse.
If a chessboard were to have rice placed upon each square such that one grain were placed on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, and so on (doubling the number of grains on each subsequent square), how many grains of wheat would be on the chessboard at the finish?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessb...

Since atmospheric CO2 is well on the way to doubling already due to human CO2 emissions, we can be pretty certain that it's not a physical impossibility and that your logic is flawed.