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

[Cruella]

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.

 

[bobgnote]

I don't think you are supposed to actually drink the bong water bob. I haven't minced any words regarding acidification. I pointed out to you that the modern forms of most marine invertebrates developed at a time when atmospheric CO2 was orders of magnitude greater than the present levels. How you interpret that as mincing is beyond me.

The only one who has failed here is you bob. You have failed to provide even the smallest shered of actual evidence to support your claims.

As to mass extinction, I can't help but note that you were unable to name even one species that has gone extinct due to climate change and yet you persist in claiming that we are in the midst of a mass extinction. Not much credibility there bob.

Being capable in the sciences myself bob, I am not dependent on the media.

I am sure that you don't realise it bob, but it is you who has placed his faith in a model that portrays the earth as flat with no rotation and only 1/4 of the actual incoming solar radiation.

Perhaps what I posted was over your head. Sorry bob, I couldn't find any kindergarden level info for you.

So you keep saying even though you can't name a single species that has gone extinct due to ocean acidification, or any of the other horrors you claim climate change will bring upon us. Again, not much help for your credibility.

Keep that place in the mountains, is my advice. You don't do anything, for the internet, you don't search the most recent media, so what are you online, for? Head for the hills, dude!

I fully understand why you, as predicted, are tucking tail to run. No worrys, it was inevetable. Have a good one bob but try not to worry so much. You have been hoaxed and it will all come out soon.

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.

 

[palerider]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

 

[mkbashar1979]

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?

Bad for human being.

 

[palerider]

Why sure, hoaxes are about money.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Global warming isn't a hoax.

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

 

[bobgnote]

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.

 

[dogtowner]

how does the effect of CO2 on coral. prove that it causes this greenhouse effect. apples and bicycles.

 

[palerider]

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.

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.

You now claim you posted links which disprove OA.

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.

You ignored how your links are out-dated and any theories behind them have been discarded, by the science community.

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

The northern icecap is failing, faster than ever.

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.

OA will increase, while Atlantic trade currents fail, from the additional melt.

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.

When the northern albedo fails, the Earth will absorb more energy, and then Greenland and East Antarctic ice will start to fail.

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.

Then sea level will rise, noticeably, while average temperatures rise, noticeably, as soon as that northern albedo fails, every summer.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

 

[RoccoR]

Cruella, et al,

Yes, I quite understand.

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.

(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

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[Cruella]

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.

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[palerider]

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/

 

[Gipper]

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

 

[palerider]

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.