Any increase in frequency of the recent Greenland ice sheet melt means:

[bobgnote]

Re bluefin tuna and cod:

Overfishing certainly is wrecking the fish. But the cod haven't been fished, aggressively, since the 1990s, AND THEY AREN'T COMING BACK. Get a clue. This could happen, to the tuna, depending on what happens, over toward Japan.

Even given destruction of the sea bottom, by trawlers, fish eggs are in trouble, as relatively acidic waters move, toward the equator, from the poles, whacking corals, on their way, to putting an end, to commercial ocean fishing.

 

[Cruella]

I think the global warming hoax is about money, but more importantly, it's about more government CONTROL. Just like all the agencies we have here, i.e. the EPA, who impose lucrative fines, taxes and expensive lawsuit attorneys.

How many changes has the earth gone through in the eons it has existed? I think it's totally arrogant of humans to think they are so important and powerful that they can change or prevent what's going to happen to this planet.

The best global warming education you will ever get (Warning - adult language)

 

[palerider]

Re bluefin tuna and cod:

Overfishing certainly is wrecking the fish. But the cod haven't been fished, aggressively, since the 1990s, AND THEY AREN'T COMING BACK. Get a clue. This could happen, to the tuna, depending on what happens, over toward Japan.

Sorry bob, but once again, you are simply wrong. Overfishing remains a problem for the north atlantic cod. It isn't global warming, it isn't the ocean acidification you seem so terrified of, it isn't CO2 from the industrialized world. The cod stocks are down for one simple reason....we like to eat them.

Here bob, from NOAA regarding the status of north atlantic cod:

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/pg/cod/

You squander your crediblity by making wild, outlandish, hysterical claims. You don't research the topic, you simply google cries of disaster and catastrophe and then make them your argument. When it is shown to you that what you believed to be true was not, in fact, true, then you grab another cry of disaster and catastrophe and make that your argument and the cycle goes on and on.

A very straight forward queston has been put to you and it hasn't gone away despite your best efforts to ignore and dodge it. What physical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science and so obviously feared by you?

Even given destruction of the sea bottom, by trawlers, fish eggs are in trouble, as relatively acidic waters move, toward the equator, from the poles, whacking corals, on their way, to putting an end, to commercial ocean fishing.

And yet again bob, you are wrong. Cod spawn within the water column and the eggs gradually float to the surface. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims of ocean acidity causing problems for any native species.....anywhere. Your hysterics over the north pacific oysters were not even due to acidity but hypoxic water from the deep oceans (not related in any way to climate change) causing problems for a non native species which farmers are trying to grow there. The native species are unaffected as these deep ocean upwellings are part of their normal ecology and they are adapted to it.

Your warnings of coral reef destruction due to ocean adidification are also without grounds. Here are some peer revied, published papers regarding the claims of the death of coral reefs:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL021541.shtml
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/03-4017?journalCode=ecol&
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL022604.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rh126234522612kj/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c06v020741675375/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01955.x/abstract

 

[bobgnote]

OK, pr, you don't see the OA scenario getting close, to cod? I believe it was you, who claimed Pacific NW oyster larvae die-offs were related, to how oyster farms try to grow a Japanese variety.

Do you see OA getting close, to thwarting aragonitic shellfish, little fish, and eggs?

Do you see, how Richard Muller admits to AGW, based on data, going back, to the 1700s? Of course, he doesn't admit to ACC, and he thinks we need to frack, out of order, with development of cycle CO2 media, so I can't say I agree with any frackers or carbon credit foolishness.

How do YOU explain Dr. Muller's extraordinary media conversion, since you don't believe in the GREENHOUSE EFFECT?

 

[bobgnote]

Hmm, AGU 2004, ESA 2004, AGU 2005, Springer 2008, Springer 2008, and '92, '95 '06, and '07 data came in for 2009, and I have to log in, to see what they had to say, or download a PDF file, and by now, I can see your trend.

Let's review some links, from 2012, shall we?

http://sio.ucsd.edu/Ocean_Acidification/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...sed-carbon-dioxide-levels-to-oyster-die-offs/

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Northwest+Oyster+Die-offs+Show+Ocean+Acidification+Has+Arrived

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/27/study-kardashians-get-40-times-more-news-covera/186703

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143735.htm


You might want to review 'current' articles, about the ocean, since you are so hysterical, as to read and refer out-dated links. Just imagine how your pulse can get going, if you read some of this exciting material, from 2012? I don't know what you are talking about, with your "hysteria," really.

But since you subscribe to hysteria, support your rants, with out-dated links, and you seem to enjoy the process, try getting really buzzed, on 2012 media. Whee! Whoop! Get it on, pr.

OA should be suspected, as a contributing cause, to failure, of the obviously over-fished cod. OR DON'T YOU SEE HOW THE RELATIVELY ACIDIC WATER IS WHERE THEIR EGGS ARE ENDING UP?

 

[bobgnote]

I think the global warming hoax is about money, but more importantly, it's about more government CONTROL. Just like all the agencies we have here, i.e. the EPA, who impose lucrative fines, taxes and expensive lawsuit attorneys.

How many changes has the earth gone through in the eons it has existed? I think it's totally arrogant of humans to think they are so important and powerful that they can change or prevent what's going to happen to this planet.

Why sure, hoaxes are about money.

Before he DIED, George Carlin needed money. He predicted people will die off, or didn't he do that, in this vid, which is doing the swirly, so I won't bother watching it, since I've seen Carlin a million times?

Heartland geeks need money. Politicians need money. Frackers and oil merchants and gun dealers and drug dealers and popos and prison industry and crusaders all need money. Their activities have a carbon footprint.

I think it is STUPID, of people, to ignore how some of them are emitting GHGs or directly causing more GHG emissions and out-gassing, while injuring CO2 respiration, while trying to fudge media, so all we are supposed to notice, is incremental CO2 emissions, of an incomplete sample, of people.

When you are STUPID, you don't deserve money, but GREEDY people seem to have cross-bred, with the stupid people, so the greedy people will continue to get money, while the stupid people want the greedy to keep profiteering, as if that is going to help the DDDs get money, in the modern economy. Hoaxes is, as hoaxes does.

Global warming isn't a hoax. Climate changes are underway, even though the planet should be cool, from relatively low solar intensity AND from evident melting perennial ice. The melting ice should cool average temperatures. So what's up, with all the new high temp records, eh? Was that a hoax?

Would ignoring you be cruel or appropriate?

 

[bobgnote]

I see no fresh troll-scat, limiting all of physics to the 2nd Law or against oceanic acidification has been posted. If you:

1. Rant
2. FAIL
3. Ride

I see no reason, why someone who does a completely aggressive, floppy failure should not go out and test the job market, to see if anybody pays hysterical buffoons, to ride around, with some pale side, hanging out of the saddle.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

I see no fresh troll-scat, limiting all of physics to the 2nd Law or against oceanic acidification has been posted. If you:

1. Rant
2. FAIL
3. Ride

I see no reason, why someone who does a completely aggressive, floppy failure should not go out and test the job market, to see if anybody pays hysterical buffoons, to ride around, with some pale side, hanging out of the saddle.

What a perfect exposition of the aforementioned tenets.

 

[bobgnote]

Gee, when you rant out words, like "aforementioned tenets," you might want to refer to which tenets you are referring, or just go ahead and use PM, to whomever you think you might relate, to whatever aforementioning.

When you are vague, it's impossible to tell if you are trolling, or what kind of trolling you intend to convey, or whether I should even bother reminding you, how you haven't once attempted, to post material, related to the OP.

Of course, if you are simply trolling, you won't bother with on-topic posts or introduction of related media:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html

We are surely in the midst of a mass extinction. Even though it's hard to compare past extinction rates with that of the present, given missing data from the past, we do know how to identify extinction periods: the elevation of extinction rates in those periods are at least a hundred-fold over the slow "background" rate of "normal" extinction.

Of about 6 to 10 million currently existing species, we have still only identified 1 million; we know more about vertebrate species than we do about plants and insects. But for groups that we know well, knowledge of very recent species extinctions -- and for current species, their ranges and the threats to them -- allows us to be certain that extinction rates are comparable to those of the great past extinctions. For example, for birds, of about 10,000 species worldwide, at least 128 have disappeared in the last 500 years, about 1,200 are currently seriously threatened with extinction (all but three from human activities); there is a real prospect of the loss of 500 bird species within this century.

For less well-known groups, we must use inference. We know there is a rough relationship between the area of a patch of habitat and the number of species it will contain. Since habitat destruction is the leading cause of endangerment and extinction, and we have data on the rate of habitat destruction, we can estimate rates of extinction in some cases. Introduced species -- those who migrate to a new area -- are the second leading cause of endangerment and extinction. Information on the rate of species introduction and the nature of the impacts of introduced species on native species and ecosystems allows inferences about extinction rates. The evidence all points to a global tragedy with a profound loss of biodiversity.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

A small child--could have seen my point there.
Trolling?--physician--heal thyself.

 

[bobgnote]

Are any of your posts supposed to constitute topical material, related to the OP?

The OP introduces tipping points, global warming, climate change, the recent Greenland ice sheet melt, and oceanic acidification got in there, related to the OP. Even a complete drunk should be able, to get something in, related to any of that, in one post or another. So far, you are 0/2.

Try for some on-topic material, or seek help, with your medication.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Are any of your posts supposed to constitute topical material, related to the OP?

The OP introduces tipping points, global warming, climate change, the recent Greenland ice sheet melt, and oceanic acidification got in there, related to the OP. Even a complete drunk should be able, to get something in, related to any of that, in one post or another. So far, you are 0/2.

Try for some on-topic material, or seek help, with your medication.

Un-hinged.

 

[bobgnote]

0/3. In English US, we tend to post complete sentences, like: Go get some troll-meds.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

0/3. In English US, we tend to post complete sentences, like: Go get some troll-meds.

I will let--others--decide.

 

[bobgnote]

A complete drunk - could have (sic) written ONE complete, coherent, referenced sentence. But a drunk, on pills?

The door is easy to find, JT. This sciencey stuff likes powers of observation, which you and your bottle aren't packing.

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html

(There must be a couple hundred links, here.)

SCROLL DOWN FOR HUNDREDS OF LINKS AND UPDATES:
For an overview of the magnitude of the crisis, scroll slowly down this page and read just the titles of all of the links. When you finish, go back and begin to click on the links to read the full articles.

New articles are added to this list regularly. Most recent update: July 3, 2012. (Note: websites are being re-organized at a frantic pace these days, sometimes resulting in broken links. If you find a broken link here you can often resurrect it by searching for the URL using Archive.org's "Wayback Machine". You may also be able to find the article you're looking for on another website with some careful web searching.)

To search for text on this page, use your web browser's "Find" feature ("Control-F" on a PC, "Command-F" on a Mac).

Note: You can now reach this page by the simple address www.massextinction.net.