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

I've been on several other boards like this one, and the global warmers are extremely obsessed in their beliefs. Most of them don't participate in any other types of discussion but global warming.

And here you are, posting idiocy, about bong water, at a science thread?

You are mincing words, about relative acidification, which is happening, too fast, for life-forms, which will be destroyed. If proxy data are believable, all desirable ocean species will fail.

The problem with thinking as bad as yours is your mind isn't recoverable. You make straw dog, man, woman, whatever conjectures, bait, recite non-science, and you can't expect me to hang around, in your special class of rabid failures.

The most ridiculous part of your demented rant is you claim to be "capable in the sciences." You can't work in the sciences. You can't post anywhere but at this forum, where even lesser minds look to you, and the lot of you play baiting games. You aren't worth knowing, so you always have time to put up a half-dozen rants, none of which show any quality of character or actual science, and your posts prove your mind is a complete failure.

I thought you'd be smart enough to just fail, and get a life, when you posted junk links, to disprove OA, and now you claim OA isn't happening, when OA always kills ocean life, at the start of any mass extinction, preceded by fast rise, in CO2. As it turns out, ALL the mass extinctions were preceded, by a fast rise, in CO2.

You don't believe in back-radiation. Aw. You don't believe a fast shift in CO2 precedes OA or mass extinction. If you could work, you are done. You and anyone like you will be extinct.

Really, football season is almost here. I don't see trying to sort out your level of incompetence, once the veterans start playing, a lot.

I just calls em as I sees them bob. Claiming victory when you haven't scored a single point is a sure sign of delusion bob. Get a grip.

Sorry bob, but it isn't happening at all. But do feel free to name a single life form that has died off due to ocean acidification. Tell me bob, what do you think the ph levels of the ocean might have been when atmospheric CO2 levels were between 3000 and 7000 ppm? And if such atmospheric CO2 levels are so deadly, how is it that the modern forms of most marine life evolved at a time when such levels were the norm? Explain please.

So you say, but it is me who is able to support my position bob. It is you who has yet to name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. It is you who is unable to name a single species that has gone extinct due to climate change and yet you claim that we are in the midst of a climate driven mass extinction. It is you who claims that historically low levels of atmospheric CO2 are going to acidify the oceans to the point of killing off marine life as we know it when the fact is that marine life as we know it evolved during a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher than present. All those claims bob and not a shred of hard evidence to support them.

And of course I don't expect you to hang around and suffer the public embarassment you are experiencing.

Sorry bob, you are wrong again. And if you knew how to operate the search feature on this board, you would see that I have posts scattered across the board. And asking you to provide some bit of hard, observed evidence to support your claims is not a baiting game. It does provide positive proof, however, that you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Again, bob, it is you who has failed and everyone here knows it. The links I posted regarding OA disproved your claims aside from the fact that simple observation proves you wrong. In the mind of believers like you, anything that doesn't support your view is junk.

Again, you claim that OA always kills ocean life but remain unable to explain how it is that most modern marine invertebrates evolved during a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the 3000 to 7000 ppm range. If 400, or 500, or even 1000 ppm is a threat to the oceans, how did modern forms of marine invertebrates evolve with atmospheric CO2 levels so high.

These are legitimate questions bob. I expect answers. Got any?

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, or cave trolls either bob. Why should I believe in bakradiation when not a single law of physics supports the hypothesis and at least 3 say that it is not possible? And why should I believe a fast shift in CO2 preceeds OA or mass extinction when not a shred of evidence exists to support such a claim? You keep making wild claims that you simply can not support and when asked for proof, or at least some sort of hard evidence, you, like all warmers switch to invective and inslult rather than supporting your argument.

I suppose that makes sense to you in some odd way. Of course, an unphysical phenomenon like backradiation makes sense to you also.

Bad for human being.

What you failed to mention bob is the group that is getting the most money. Climate scientists are making money off this hoax at a rate of about 1000 to one when compared to the skeptics. If money breeds suspicion in you, then you should look to the plae where the most money is going.

Greed meaning collecting money at a rate of 1000 to one when comared to skeptics? You don't think that sort of money would prompt climate scientists to say whatever the people providing the billions upon billions want them to say?

Climate change isn't a hoax, but climate change due to the activities of man is and it is a very profitable hoax indeed.

So, pr, you claim no back-radiation or OA, and you ignored the reference, to coral studies, which show how EVERY TIME CO2 goes up, partly as fast as concentration is rising today, changes occur, which lead to a MASS EXTINCTION EVENT. You now claim you posted links which disprove OA. You ignored how your links are out-dated and any theories behind them have been discarded, by the science community. The northern icecap is failing, faster than ever. OA will increase, while Atlantic trade currents fail, from the additional melt. When the northern albedo fails, the Earth will absorb more energy, and then Greenland and East Antarctic ice will start to fail. Then sea level will rise, noticeably, while average temperatures rise, noticeably, as soon as that northern albedo fails, every summer. You are a gross DENIER. You haven't noticed cumulative human effect, at interfering with CO2 respiration, you ignored Muller's recent admission, how global warming is caused, by human activities, you ignore tipping points, and you have a place, in the mountains. Since you have FAILED, either come up with some better links, which prove something interesting, or which disprove OA, or I'll go ahead and IGNORE you, since your unseemly interest in pretending to science or falsely claiming to post relevant links shows a blocking ability, sufficient to claim disability.

Right bob, I don't believe in backradiation. I have asked you repeatedly to name one physical law which supports and predicts backradiation which is the basis for the greenhouse effect claimed by climate science and to date, you haven't done it while I have named at least 3 physical laws which state clearly that backradiation is not possible.

And you have not provided a single shred of evidence shows that whenever CO2 goes up, mas extinctions happen. I believe that you believe what you have provided does so, but I will just chalk that up to your fervent belief and perhaps a bit of a reading disability. If you believe you have provided such evidence, then kindly link to it again and point out where the material states what you claim.

There's that reading disability again. I never posted a link that disproves OA, I posted links which dispute the effects you attribute to OA.

Again, not true bob, but if you want more, I will gladly give you more as all of the actual science coming out on the topic show that OA is not the threat you imagine it to be.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771410002167
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141113609000178
http://www.springerlink.com/content/9t34414p64030782/?MUD=MP
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01955.x/abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/23/9316.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027277140900537X

And here is the most comprehensive, up to date database on the topic of OA available and alas, bob, the perponderace of the studies show that you are wringing your hands over nothing. OA is not the impending disaster you have been frightened with. I am sure that the material is over your head but then if you could actually read and understand the material rather than take the word of the fearmongers you turn to for guidance, you would not be making the absurd claims you are presently making.

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php

Really bob? Faster than ever? Faster than during the Medieval warm period when arctic temperatures were considerably warmer than the present? Faster than during the roman warm period when arctic temperatures were warmer still? Faster than during the Holocene Maximum when temperatures were much warmer than either of the aforementioned? Faster than the previous warm cycles where no ice existed anywhere?

Hell bob, faster than the not so distant past? Here is the USS Skate at the North Pole in 1959. Not much ice there, huh?



Here is the Seadragon and the Skate at the north pole in 1962. Again, not much ice.



Here is a photo from 1987



The fact is bob, that the ice comes and goes. Nothing new and nothing to fear.

Face it bob, you don't have a leg to stand on. You make wild hysterical claims that are patently false in an attempt to scare people. The thing is bob, that rational, thinking people aren't going to be frightened by your hysterics because they apply the claims to history and see that the senarios you claim have already happened....repeatedly....without the catastrophic consequences you claim.

Where did you get that little gem from? Let me guess, a climate model; because it certainly didn't come from anything like actual observable evidence. You are really out there bob and the fact that I believe that you actually beleive the things you write prompts me to feel a bit sorry for you.

What do you believe is the difference between the present albedo and the albedo 14K years ago when the ice caps extended about 2000 miles further south? The fact is bob, that the ice has been melting for a very long time and the fact that it continues to melt should come as no surprise to you and the fact that it has melted over and over and the warmer it gets, the better it is for life should make you look forward to the coming spring because at present bob, the earth is a very cold place compared to its historical norm.

Sea level has risen 600 meters during the past 14K years bob. What are you claiming, another 10, or even 20? So what? People will move inland if it happens and it is surely going to because it has happened before bob. The earth is coming out of an ice age and whether you like it or not, we can't do a thing about it. It has happened over and over before and the effects are perfectly predictable. If you had any solid knowledge of paleohistory, you wouldn't be subject to the fearmomgers who are terrifying you.

As to the present mass extinction you cliam.......I am laughing in your face bob.

Muller? Seriously bob? Muller? Are you aware that none of his work has passed peer review? His work is a joke and so bad that it can't even pass pal review where every fearmonger out there can get a paper published.

I have asked you at what level of atmospheric CO2 you believe will constitute a tipping point. To date, you haven't come up with an answer. We know from history that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm with no "runaway" global warming so tell me bob, what level do you believe will be the "tipping" point and when do you think we will get there?

Sorry bob, but it is you who has failed. You are acting like a hand waving hysterical old woman claiming that the sky is falling with nothing more than an acorn in your hand.
And of course you will ignore me because I am asking hard questions that you can't answer and asking for actual observable, repeatable evidence of which you have none. You can't continue the conversation in anything like a rational way meaning providing answers to the questions I am asking or showing the actual observed evidence supporting your claims, or even a single physical law that supports and predicts the claimed basis for all your hysterics so you will, as predicted, hurl insult, continue screaming your imagined fears and forgo anything like a rational discussion.

So tell me bob, can you answer any of the questions I have asked?

edited for content

Cruella, et al,

Yes, I quite understand.

(COMMENT)

My problem is the oppositie. I know just enough to know - that - I don't know anything.

You see, from my perspective, everyone is an expert. And I don't quite know who to listen to - as there are many connections in time, in cycles of activity, in the chemistry, physics, and biology. I have to hand it to the climatologist; they have a lot on their plate to explain all these various observations. There is a lot to take into consideration and it does seem to me that anyone is really explaining this in a 1, 2, 3, ... step-by-step manner.

Most Respectfully,
R

Take a few minutes sometime and do a bit of research into the education required to be a climatologist. Contrary to what many belive, climatology is a soft science, meaning that one doesn't need much in the way of hard sciences (physics, chemistry) or mathematics (3000 level and above) in order to get the degree. Meteorologists are far more educated in the actual sciences than climatologist. Climatologists tend to lean towards computer programming but don't have the hard science background required to actually understand the physics they are trying to model and as a result, simply take the flawed basis for present climate science as truth with no real idea whether it represents fact or not. As a result, models are, at present a waste of time and money.

If you ask actual scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc., who have a real background and education in the hard sciences, you will find that very few are on the manmade global warming bandwagon. They know that the basis upon which modern climate science is so terribly flawed, that it doesn't even bear serious consideration. The model upon which modern climate science is based is literally a flat earth that doesn't roate and receives only 1/4 of the energy that the earth in reality receives and has no night and no differentiation between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. How could anyone possibly believe that anything like accurate representations of the actual climate could come from a computer program that doesn't model anything like the real earth?

On top of a terribly flawed model, the physics that the terribly flawed models attempt to work with are absolute rubbish violating no less than 4 physical laws. First and second laws of thermodynamics, law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws being the most obvious.

I don't know much either Rocco, I just know the weather where I live hasn't changed. I have read the fall out from the memo's where they admitted to tampering with the data, to show it was getting warmer when it wasn't. Of course I wouldn't believe any of the hype by Pig-Man-Bear either.

Way too many scientists have said it's a hoax and bunk science. I like that kooky guy in London, Piers Corbyn. He says our weather has to do with the sun's activity and ocean currents. He has predicted a major climatic shift starting around Aug. 19th. He's the one who predicted that record breaking winter in Europe a couple of years ago, when London's own national weather service said they were going to have a mild winter. I'll stick with him for now.

I wouldn't put much stock in anyone who claims to be able to predict global climatic shifts to the day even if he is saying something that you agree with. We don't even have enough understanding at present to tell you for shure whether or not it is going to rain on your lawn 3 days in advance much less predict global climatic shifts with anything like that sort of accuracy.

Here is a genuinely sad example of what warmist hysteria leads to. The woman is lying to her children and sadly I believe that she believes her own lies.

http://njtoday.net/2012/08/14/telling-my-children-about-climate-change/

That is sad and likely a form of child abuse. Ignorance is breeding more ignorance. You should email her and educate her in an effort to save her poor children.

She would gladly give up all her liberty so that the government could 'fix' the climate. Progressive tyrants love her. I suspect she has lost her mind...another consequence of Liberalism.

This from Thomas DiLorezo is an excellent summary...
An environmentalist is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of "saving the planet" from capitalism. He is "green" on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a "watermelon."
A conservationist, by contrast, is someone who is actually interested in solving environmental and ecological problems and protecting wildlife and its habitat. He does not propose having government force a separation of man and nature by nationalizing land and other resources, confiscating private property, prohibiting the raising of certain types of animals, regulating human food intake, etc.
http://mises.org/daily/6089/The-Watermelon-Summit

True enough. You know, the funny thing is that from a few of the comments he has made, bob strikes me as the furtherest thing from a socialist. One has to wonder if he has even the slightest inkling of the sort of people he has become a mouthpiece for.

Sure I can answer your "questions," p.r. You are absolutely questionable, so you can have this, every other week.

First, your links are to studies, none more recent, than 2010, and usually, they are from 2005 or so, and some of them cost $40 to look at. You are welcome to them. Whoever scats up links, to old studies, which aren't all published, needs to refer to the topic, only, and you failed. You just posted links, to any old study, and none of them had anything to do with coral record, which indicates any time CO2 goes up, partly as fast as it is rising, today, the Earth suffers a mass extinction event.

Your link, to CO2 Science is to a 2012 site, which studies CO2 bubbling, not what happens, which is melt-water, river flows, and RAIN enter the ocean, to cause relative increase in acidity. When rain falls, it starts as pH 7, but it may fall, as pH 5.5 or worse, depending if it passes, through CO2, with SO2 and NO2.

Your crazy submarine pictures are very interesting but unscientific. Did you read any of the studies, to which you linked? I sure won't pay $40, to look at one of those obsolete studies.

You thoroughly rant, about "hysteria, hysterical, screaming, old woman," and you crossed the line, to insult, so why shouldn't I mostly ignore you? I figure I could get over here every couple of weeks, to see if you accept Stefan-Boltzman, but you won't.

You just post up a bunch of bob-this and bob-that nonsense, and you think I must be feeling something, instead of getting suspicious, about you? And then you plop something kinda correct, about me being "furtherest" from a socialist. Socialism is, as socialism does. When we have special-interest socialism, I like it not. We gottum.

Warming is happening, climate change is happening, but wait. It won't even get really noticeable, until about 2030-2050, when GHGs are even more off the hook, concurrent with substantial failure, of the northern cap ice albedo. You can't possibly think I am going to visit this forum, more than once every couple of weeks, until then, when Phase II of runaway warming will be all-too evident.

Your measure of Arctic polar extent is really sciencey, dude. Pictures of submarines! Why didn't I think of that. I'd give you some reasons, but it amounts to the ball game is on, or maybe even South Park.

How about that Isaac? The pubs are being smart and hurrying up, since Tampa sucks up the water.

Says the guy who can't name a single physical law that either supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

Now that's interesting bob; you complaining about the dates of the published, peer reviewed studies I provided to you. Especially considering that the basis for anthropogenic climate change alarmism is based on a junior high level experiments done in the late 1800's by Tyndal and Arrhenius, which, by the way, were disproved shortly after they were published by professor Woods. The world is still waiting on a single real world experiment that proves the greenhouse effect claimed by those quaint, 19th century philosophers.

As to the links to the effects of CO2 and acidification on coral, I suggest that you look again. They were spot on target and effectively dismissed your hysterical handwaving.

So now you are in a quasi panic over rainwater entering the ocean? Geez guy, do you ever get any sleep living in such a state of agnst?

Your crazy submarine pictures are very interesting but unscientific. Did you read any of the studies, to which you linked? I sure won't pay $40, to look at one of those obsolete studies.

Of course you should ignore me since you are completely duped and unable to answer a single question I have put to you.

As to Stefan-Boltzman, I am afraid that it is you who does not accept the facts. As I have already stated, the Stefan-Boltzman law is one of the laws that say pretty explicitly that a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science is not possible. We all know that the math is way over your head, but what the hell, lets give it a shot.

Here is the Stefan-Boltzman law:



As it applies to energy exchanges between the earth and atmosphere (claimed greenhouse effect) where a warm object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzman law is expressed as follows:



Where P=the net radiated power, A= the net radiating area, = the Stefan-Boltzman constant , e= emissivity, T= temperature of the radiator, and = the temperature of the surroundings. As you can see, aside from being a formula to determine the emissivity of a black body (which the earth is not, a strike one for your side) and a perfect black body at that (strike two for your side) the Stefan-Boltzman law describes heat exchange from a warm object (the earth) to its cooler surroundings (the atmosphere). Being founded on, and predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, there is no leeway within the Stefan-Boltzman law for anything like backradiation. (strike three, you're out).

Of course, if you believe that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and the Stefan-Boltzman law which is entirely supported by and actually predicted by the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, feel free to show where backradiation can happen within that equation. If you need an equation editor to write out your equations for use on this forum, a good one can be found here: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php Just type in your equation then copy and paste the edited form below the text box. I look forward to seeing you prove both the second law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law.

Of course the climate is changing. Can you name any period in history where it was static?

Upon what do you base that claim bob? Climate models which have shown themselves to be entirely unreliable? They fail every time they are tried because they are based on fictitious physics bob. They assume backradiation, for example, in conjunction with the Stefan-Boltzman law which assumes the earth is a black body and impossible backradiation can be happening. Aside from that glaring error, those models you believe in model the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate, has no night time, and is radiated across its entire surface by 1/4 of the actual radiation that is coming in from the sun. The models don't represent the earth as anything like the earth as it actually exists so what makes you believe that they will produce output that in any way resembles the actual earth?

The photos prove beyond any doubt that an ice free arctic isn't anything new or particularly unusual. Sorry bob.

Issac? That little storm that might be the first hurricane to hit the US since 2005? Are you going to wave your hands hysterically and claim that global warming is causing more and stronger atlantic hurricanes as well?

Of course he can't. At least you weren't surprised.

I am looking forward to doing some math with him. What do you want to bet that he disappoints me?