Remember me
▼ Content

But the Climate is Always Changing!



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
30-01-2016 01:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
I agree with Tai Hai Chen. There's ZERO relation between CO2 and global warming. Anyone who claims otherwise should start to do some research instead of brainless repeating what you just believe or are being told.


Can you give us an example of the sort of sources you have used to do 'some research'?



Edited on 30-01-2016 01:28
30-01-2016 01:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: What for proving different substances have different properties?


No, for proving the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

spot wrote:I did some research I proved the relationship between CO2 and tempture


If there were such a relationship to be shown, you'd be headed for the big-time.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 01:33
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
The only reason why earth warms up is when it's getting closer to the sun due to its orbit.

There's even no long term relation between dust in the atmosphere and cooling down. Global warming and cooling is real simple science. There no need to look for overly complicated other causes. CO2 is an effect, not the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists are mixing cause and effect.

It wouldn't be the first time someone with no clue about science posts evidence-free wacky assertions on an anonymous forum.



Edited on 30-01-2016 01:38
30-01-2016 01:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:It wouldn't be the first time someone with no clue about science posts evidence-free wacky assertions on an anonymous forum.

No, Ceist, you weren't the first either. You're not even the first to exceed 300 consecutive posts without any intellectual value. There are many of your scientifically illiterate warmizombie brethren who have long-since beaten you to the punch.

p.s. - can't I get at least one "petard" comment?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 08:18
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Ceist wrote:
It wouldn't be the first time someone with no clue about science posts evidence-free wacky assertions on an anonymous forum


Well, let's see how scientific you are. I used an unpolluted source. This source shows NO relation between CO2 and Delta D. You may guess what it is.

Oh well, there is a relation. But that's the effect of the cause. If you get what I mean. You climate fanatics are confusing cause and effect. You tend to think that CO2 causes warming, while it's the other way around. When the oceans warm up slightly, it releases CO2.

When you would have done a proper job, you would agree with me and others that CO2 cannot cause warming. What most scientists have done is relentlessly filtering the data until they've found what they want to find.

That's no science. That's fraud.
Edited on 30-01-2016 08:41
30-01-2016 10:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
It wouldn't be the first time someone with no clue about science posts evidence-free wacky assertions on an anonymous forum


Well, let's see how scientific you are. I used an unpolluted source. This source shows NO relation between CO2 and Delta D. You may guess what it is.

Oh well, there is a relation. But that's the effect of the cause. If you get what I mean. You climate fanatics are confusing cause and effect. You tend to think that CO2 causes warming, while it's the other way around. When the oceans warm up slightly, it releases CO2.

When you would have done a proper job, you would agree with me and others that CO2 cannot cause warming. What most scientists have done is relentlessly filtering the data until they've found what they want to find.

That's no science. That's fraud.


What are you rambling about? You sound very confused. An 'unpolluted source'? And you want me to "guess what it is"?

Show us this 'unpolluted source'


We could listen to the evidence-free junk-science personal opinions of anonymous lay people on a forum, or the evidence-based science from experts on the earth's climate history like Professor Richard Alley:

The short 24 minute lecture below on the history of earth's climate is from the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Symposium by Professor Richard Alley - Anyone who has seen ice core graphs, has probably seen graphs based on his work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg


Longer more detailed presentation here from the 2009 American Geophysical Union Conference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g


And not that it should matter, but Richard Alley is a Republican


You'll find his academic qualifications and experience, as well as several hundred published research papers listed in his CV:

Professor Richard Alley - Curriculum Vitae
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/alley_vita_long_nov15.pdf



Edited on 30-01-2016 10:21
30-01-2016 10:46
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
If you're a so called expert you should know what I'm 'rambling' about. All these experts are wrong. No matter how much titles they're wearing.

Professors will never go against the establishment, that is the reason why their expertise is totally worthless.

Just start to use your brains instead of believing nonsense.
Edited on 30-01-2016 10:50
30-01-2016 11:09
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
If you're a so called expert you should know what I'm 'rambling' about. All these experts are wrong. No matter how much titles they're wearing.

Professors will never go against the establishment, that is the reason why their expertise is totally worthless.

Just start to use your brains instead of believing nonsense.

I'm not the one claiming to be an 'expert', you are. So far all you've done is made a few ignorant waffling rambling assertions.

How the heck is anyone supposed to 'guess' what your so-called 'unpolluted sources' are? Are they voices in your head?

I noticed on your blog that you're also a 911 'truther'. LOL!

This forum has become a crank magnet for complete nutters. You should feel right at home with IbDaMned, Into the Dark and Tai Hai Chen.



Edited on 30-01-2016 11:12
30-01-2016 11:09
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
... the evidence-based science from experts on the earth's climate history like Professor Richard Alley

This needs a comment! From Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"



1) Why does he only show 400 million years, when GEOCARB III goes back to the cambrian explosion 542 million years back in time?

2) Why does he show data about icecaps on land, when it is better to show data about Ice-rafted debris?

This graphics is from the book Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments p. 466:



We see four examples of "Ice house" (or ice ages, where we are in one right now). Of those four "Ice house", the two are at times with high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere: the one at about 440 mio. years ago (which adequate for Richard Alley lies before his start time in his graph), and the one at about 144 mio. years ago, which Richard Alley leaves out, because he only looks at icecaps on land.

The following graphics is from an article in Nature 408 (December 7th 2000), Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon by Veizer et. al. and shows the same four cold periods in the last more than 500 million years.


Edited on 30-01-2016 11:22
30-01-2016 11:35
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
If you're a so called expert you should know what I'm 'rambling' about. All these experts are wrong. No matter how much titles they're wearing.

Professors will never go against the establishment, that is the reason why their expertise is totally worthless.

Just start to use your brains instead of believing nonsense.

I'm not the one claiming to be an 'expert', you are. So far all you've done is made a few ignorant waffling rambling assertions.

How the heck is anyone supposed to 'guess' what your so-called 'unpolluted sources' are? Are they voices in your head?

I noticed on your blog that you're also a 911 'truther'. LOL!

This forum has become a crank magnet for complete nutters. You should feel right at home with IbDaMned, Into the Dark and Tai Hai Chen.


No, this forum is pushing the nutters like you out. People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs. People like you are looking up to these kinds of fools, because you understand not one iota of math.

And, yes, IbDaMned, Into the Dark and Tai Hai Chen are much smarter than you are.
30-01-2016 12:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
Ya its fun for a while but repeating yourself over and over gets tiresome, I suppose this forum serves a purpose but a venue for people to discuss how the world works and what that means for us isen't it. You think you're like the rebel alliance takeing on a liberal conspiracy but the fact is there is only one truth and you all disagree with each other over fundamental details.
30-01-2016 12:05
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs.


So when you are ill, you don't go to one of these idiotic people with fancy medicines and titles like "Doctor", you go to a faith healer, one of the ones that uses snake oils to cure everything because someone told you it worked on her bunions.

So when your car has a problem you don't take it to a garage but to the you neighbor's 4-year old because you were told that she "loved to take things apart"

So when you have a legal problem you don't go to court with a lawyer, but with your unemployed second cousin who spends most of his day in front of the tv watching Judge Judy and told you that he now knows all the laws of every country in the world

So when you house is settling and water is pouring into your basement, you don't go to a contractor, builder or engineer who have all these fancy qualifications but to your mentally retarded brother (he was dropped on his head when he was young and your parents, like you, did not believe in doctors or hospitals) because you were told that at 36 he still sits cross legged in front of the fire playing with his leggo set.

Good luck with that but I think I can conclude who is the idiot for believing things they are told.
30-01-2016 15:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:

This needs a comment! From Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"


1) Why does he only show 400 million years, when GEOCARB III goes back to the cambrian explosion 542 million years back in time?



I'm sure you've read about some conspiratorial nefarious plot on some layperson's blog. However reading under that particular graph in Alley's presentation will show you it was from Jansen et al 2007. It's not difficult to find that paper if you had bothered to fact check instead of swallowing a conspiracy story. The figure is on pg 441

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Jansen_etal_1.pdf

The graph in Jansen et al 2007 references Crowley et al 1998

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4016587

...which discusses plate tectonics and the significance for paleo reconstructions. What do you think was happening about 400 million years ago?

John Niclasen wrote:

2) Why does he show data about icecaps on land, when it is better to show data about Ice-rafted debris?

LOL! Okay this shows you don't seriously have a clue what you are talking about. By the way, your link goes nowhere.

The Jansen et al graph used by Alley wasn't showing "icecaps on land", it was showing how close icesheets came towards the equator during ice age periods (Paleoaltitude). By the way, maybe you should find out what ice-rafted debris actually is instead of mindlessly parroting what you read on some blog. What a turkey!


John Niclasen wrote:
This graphics is from the book Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments p. 466:



We see four examples of "Ice house" (or ice ages, where we are in one right now). Of those four "Ice house", the two are at times with high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere: the one at about 440 mio. years ago (which adequate for Richard Alley lies before his start time in his graph), and the one at about 144 mio. years ago, which Richard Alley leaves out, because he only looks at icecaps on land.



The graph is Figure I10 from the chapter by Paul K Link. It's not particularly smart to post a graph from a paper or book you've clearly never read. You don't have a clue what you are looking at. Figure I10 shows an anti-correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and d18O values (proxy for oceanic temperature), which tracks the latitude of ice-rafted glacial debris.

As I doubt you are able to access it, I'll copy and paste from the chapter. Note the bolded:

"Late Ordovician and Early Silurian glaciations
During the Late Ordovician to early Silurian (_458–421 Ma),
short but severe glaciations affected areas of South Africa,
the Saharan region of North Africa, and South America as the
continents drifted over the South Pole. These glaciations were
primarily due to continental positioning, and did not represent
a global icehouse event. Atmospheric CO2 percentage was high
(Figure I10), but its effects were overridden by favorable continental
positioning of Gondwanaland near the South Pole
(Crowley and Berner, 2001)."


You appear to be blissfully unaware that 144 million years ago, it was the late Jurassic/early Cretacious period. Dinosaurs ring a bell? The graph even says clearly "No polar ice caps recognised". You don't have a clue what you are even looking at, haven't even read the papers the graphs came from, yet you confidently accuse Prof Alley of lying. Typical.

John Niclasen wrote:
The following graphics is from an article in Nature 408 (December 7th 2000), Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon by Veizer et. al. and shows the same four cold periods in the last more than 500 million years.




And once again, you show you don't have clue what you are looking at and haven't read the paper or you would have read the description under the graph "The lighter blue shading for the Jurassic/Cretaceous icehouse reflects the fact that true polar ice caps have not been documented for this time interval" or that the paper was about Sea Surface Temperatures in the tropics.

Classic.




Edited on 30-01-2016 16:17
30-01-2016 16:22
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
If you're a so called expert you should know what I'm 'rambling' about. All these experts are wrong. No matter how much titles they're wearing.

Professors will never go against the establishment, that is the reason why their expertise is totally worthless.

Just start to use your brains instead of believing nonsense.

I'm not the one claiming to be an 'expert', you are. So far all you've done is made a few ignorant waffling rambling assertions.

How the heck is anyone supposed to 'guess' what your so-called 'unpolluted sources' are? Are they voices in your head?

I noticed on your blog that you're also a 911 'truther'. LOL!

This forum has become a crank magnet for complete nutters. You should feel right at home with IbDaMned, Into the Dark and Tai Hai Chen.


No, this forum is pushing the nutters like you out. People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs. People like you are looking up to these kinds of fools, because you understand not one iota of math.

And, yes, IbDaMned, Into the Dark and Tai Hai Chen are much smarter than you are.

Yes dear. Now I'll just let the psych nurses know there is a new inmate for this mental health facility for delusional climate science deniers, and that you haven't had any anti-psychotic medication yet. I'll drop in to visit and observe the antics of you and the other inmates from time to time.




Edited on 30-01-2016 16:23
30-01-2016 16:32
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs.


So when you are ill, you don't go to one of these idiotic people with fancy medicines and titles like "Doctor", you go to a faith healer, one of the ones that uses snake oils to cure everything because someone told you it worked on her bunions.

So when your car has a problem you don't take it to a garage but to the you neighbor's 4-year old because you were told that she "loved to take things apart"

So when you have a legal problem you don't go to court with a lawyer, but with your unemployed second cousin who spends most of his day in front of the tv watching Judge Judy and told you that he now knows all the laws of every country in the world

So when you house is settling and water is pouring into your basement, you don't go to a contractor, builder or engineer who have all these fancy qualifications but to your mentally retarded brother (he was dropped on his head when he was young and your parents, like you, did not believe in doctors or hospitals) because you were told that at 36 he still sits cross legged in front of the fire playing with his leggo set.

Good luck with that but I think I can conclude who is the idiot for believing things they are told.


Who needs to spend more than 10 years gaining academic qualifications and 30 or 40 years of active research publishing hundreds of papers, when some layperson can just not bother to take the time to even read even a first year textbook, just make shit up himself, and claim all the experts are wrong?




Edited on 30-01-2016 16:33
30-01-2016 21:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote: Who needs to spend more than 10 years gaining academic qualifications and 30 or 40 years of active research publishing hundreds of papers, ...

...like the fundamentalist Christian ministers with lots of honorary degrees from non-accredited institutions and hundreds of theological publications under their belts? ...or the "climate" activists (euphemistically called "scientists") who churn out crap papers citing illogical conclusions drawn from unfalsifiable models just to get a paycheck and to maintain their self-justified funding?

Ceist wrote: when some layperson can just not bother to take the time to even read even a first year textbook,...

Ceist, if an eight-year-old boy, who hasn't taken the time to even read a first-year textbook were to tell you that energy can never be created or destroyed, would you believe him or would you mock him?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2016 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
DRKTS wrote:
People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs.


So when you are ill, you don't go to one of these idiotic people with fancy medicines and titles like "Doctor", you go to a faith healer, one of the ones that uses snake oils to cure everything because someone told you it worked on her bunions.

As for me, I don't just believe everything they say blindly. Doctors are well known for failing to see or properly diagnose a problem. I go to several of them if I have to. Simple things like wounds they are well practiced at, and I have no problem going to someone with that mechanical practice.

DRKTS wrote:
So when your car has a problem you don't take it to a garage but to the you neighbor's 4-year old because you were told that she "loved to take things apart"

I don't take my car to a mechanic. I fix it myself. I have never taken a car to a mechanic. I have met mechanics who are talented at their art and I've met guys who couldn't replace a spark plug wire without getting into trouble.

DRKTS wrote:
So when you have a legal problem you don't go to court with a lawyer, but with your unemployed second cousin who spends most of his day in front of the tv watching Judge Judy and told you that he now knows all the laws of every country in the world

I have often gone to court representing myself and won cases. You do not need a lawyer to go to court. They work with the court system constantly, however, and can give useful advice navigating their inanity. I am sure everyone here is aware of the barratry problem in our courts.

DRKTS wrote:
So when you house is settling and water is pouring into your basement, you don't go to a contractor, builder or engineer who have all these fancy qualifications but to your mentally retarded brother (he was dropped on his head when he was young and your parents, like you, did not believe in doctors or hospitals) because you were told that at 36 he still sits cross legged in front of the fire playing with his leggo set.

Apparently unlike you, I maintain my house so it does not develop this problem.

DRKTS wrote:
Good luck with that but I think I can conclude who is the idiot for believing things they are told.


People with qualifications have useful opinions. Lumping in the ability of people who are qualified at their job with these morons pushing your AGW Religion is an insult to their work.

There is certainly nothing wrong with learning any of these fields for yourself so you can make informed decisions. All you are doing is justifying your own illiteracy and ignorance.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 01:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Into the Night wrote:People with qualifications have useful opinions. Lumping in the ability of people who are qualified at their job with these morons pushing your AGW Religion is an insult to their work.

There is certainly nothing wrong with learning any of these fields for yourself so you can make informed decisions. All you are doing is justifying your own illiteracy and ignorance.

Yup. Well put.

Where's the "Like" button?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 01:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Looking up publications by IBdaMann in Google Scholar

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=IBdaMann&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

For IBdaMann, there is only one 'almost match' with an article on Distal Proctocolitis - an inflammation in the rectum and colon. Considering the place where IBdaMann usually pulls his opinions from..... it's a hilarious coincidence




Edited on 31-01-2016 01:49
31-01-2016 01:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark (and other science deniers) are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"



Edited on 31-01-2016 02:37
31-01-2016 02:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark (and other science deniers) are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"


Indeed!

However have you ever tried to do a 10000 piece jigsaw? My wife and I did once. It was an Xmas gift to each other. We started it on Boxing Day and finished in April! We were so jigsawed out that immediately we glued it down to a piece of plywood so we would not be tempted to try to do it again! It hangs in our basement wall as a cautionary tale about not biting off more than you can chew.
31-01-2016 04:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
Here's an analogy. IBdaMann and Into the Dark (and other science deniers) are like a little boy who was given a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle that when completed would be a complex picture of the earth. The boy took 10 pieces that didn't fit together and arranged them in the rough shape of a squirrel, tossed aside the other 9,990 pieces, then ran to his mummy yelling "Mummy! I solved the puzzle! Look! It's a squirrel! I'm really smart!"

As adults, they are doing the same thing as that little boy, but with science.

They post incessantly on internet forums that all the scientists are wrong and they are right. But their posts are just the equivalent of that little boy shouting "Look! It's a squirrel!"

Of course if anyone tries to explain to them that their 10 pieces don't even fit together and they are missing the other 9,990 pieces, they'll just keep insisting "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

CSIEA


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 05:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote: "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

Off topic but are you a Spongebob fan?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=intent://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DkAMxVmFfCcM%23Intent%3Bscheme%3Dhttp%3Bpackage%3Dcom.google.android.youtube%3BS.android.intent.extra.REFERRER_NAME%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%3BlaunchFlags%3D0x8080000%3Bend&ved=0ahUKEwiHlbLkh9PKAhVEmR4KHfP8AQQQjjgIGzAA&usg=AFQjCNEAcsI3Y0oWByiaqOliYasQa86ZMg&sig2=bZB_OALvWQeie7zLnl5_MQ


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 16:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
link doesn't work spongebob must have been dissolved due to oceanic acidification.
31-01-2016 16:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote:
link doesn't work spongebob must have been dissolved due to oceanic acidification.


The link works for me, probably owing to the fact that the oceans have never acidified.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 16:54
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

The link works for me, probably owing to the fact that the oceans have never acidified.


No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1 which would require an increase of H+ by about a third and is the fastest drop in pH in the last 300 million years according to recent research
31-01-2016 17:09
John Niclasen
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Growing corals turn water more acidic without suffering damage

Listen to an environmentalist talking about this study among other things. He mentions the study at 22:29 in the video:

Ocean Acidification - The Facts - Dr Patrick Moore

31-01-2016 17:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
DRKTS wrote:No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

No it hasn't, at least not that anyone can tell. By all appearances the ocean's pH is exactly what it was a thousand years ago.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 18:17
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
If the CO2 conmen here would have done their own research, they would see that CO2 is a response to the δD (‰). δD is still the most reliable proxy for temperature. CO2 is the effect, and not the cause. Most climate scientists are insanely stupid, or maybe slaves of the institutions or whatever. If you've no idea what I'm talking about, it's time to start studying instead of parroting.

I would like to advice anyone who's whining about manmade CO2, to download the data from Dome-C or Vostok. I've provided a link here to my Mediafire account where you can get the 'pure' data: http://www.mediafire.com/view/s4r3odf24c32529/aicc2012icecore-data.xls
31-01-2016 18:29
spot
★★★★☆
(1078)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

No it hasn't, at least not that anyone can tell. By all appearances the ocean's pH is exactly what it was a thousand years ago.


According to my sources since the 1990s its dropped from 8.104 to 8.069. so it is changing again your proven wrong.
31-01-2016 18:35
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

No it hasn't, at least not that anyone can tell. By all appearances the ocean's pH is exactly what it was a thousand years ago.


According to my sources since the 1990s its dropped from 8.104 to 8.069. so it is changing again your proven wrong.


It's going to neutral, funny boy.
31-01-2016 19:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
spot wrote: According to my sources ... so it is changing again your proven wrong.


It's too bad your sources don't include the actual ocean.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 19:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Buildreps wrote:It's going to neutral, funny boy.

Well it would be if it actually were.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2016 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

No it hasn't, at least not that anyone can tell. By all appearances the ocean's pH is exactly what it was a thousand years ago.


I guess he's too cheap to go buy the glassware to titrate it himself. He just heard the number somewhere, and like usual, never provided the source for it.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:No, not acidified ... are acidifying, i.e., pH is dropping

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

No it hasn't, at least not that anyone can tell. By all appearances the ocean's pH is exactly what it was a thousand years ago.


According to my sources since the 1990s its dropped from 8.104 to 8.069. so it is changing again your proven wrong.

And what are your sources? Why don't you just go out and measure it yourself. It's even easier than your weird bottle experiments.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2016 22:00
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
John Niclasen wrote:
Growing corals turn water more acidic without suffering damage

Listen to an environmentalist talking about this study among other things. He mentions the study at 22:29 in the video:

Ocean Acidification - The Facts - Dr Patrick Moore


You slag off Richard Alley because you didn't understand the science and didn't bother to check the lies you parroted from some blogger, then you present a junk-science video by that 'non-scientist for hire' charlatan Patrick Moore? LOL!

You're just showing again that you'll un-sceptically believe anyone who tells you what you want to hear and don't give a damn about science or 'The Facts'.



Edited on 31-01-2016 22:25
31-01-2016 22:18
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Buildreps wrote:
If the CO2 conmen here would have done their own research, they would see that CO2 is a response to the δD (‰). δD is still the most reliable proxy for temperature. CO2 is the effect, and not the cause. Most climate scientists are insanely stupid, or maybe slaves of the institutions or whatever. If you've no idea what I'm talking about, it's time to start studying instead of parroting.

I would like to advice anyone who's whining about manmade CO2, to download the data from Dome-C or Vostok. I've provided a link here to my Mediafire account where you can get the 'pure' data: http://www.mediafire.com/view/s4r3odf24c32529/aicc2012icecore-data.xls

Yes yes, all the scientists are 'insanely stupid' and only YOU, a brilliant genius with no background in science, know the "Real Truth" right?




Edited on 31-01-2016 22:22
31-01-2016 22:20
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:

The term "acidifying" means "becoming acid."

A drop in the pH of a base is "neutralizing."

The oceans are not losing pH.

Go take a class.


.


In common usage you are correct, but in scientific usage (specifically climatology or oceanography) it means a reduction of pH

Do a search on research papers including the words "ocean acidification" ... over 26,000 - then read some of them

You are playing semantics while the planet burns ... hail, Nero!
31-01-2016 22:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Ceist wrote:
John Niclasen wrote:

This needs a comment! From Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"


1) Why does he only show 400 million years, when GEOCARB III goes back to the cambrian explosion 542 million years back in time?



I'm sure you've read about some conspiratorial nefarious plot on some layperson's blog. However reading under that particular graph in Alley's presentation will show you it was from Jansen et al 2007. It's not difficult to find that paper if you had bothered to fact check instead of swallowing a conspiracy story. The figure is on pg 441

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Jansen_etal_1.pdf

The graph in Jansen et al 2007 references Crowley et al 1998

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4016587

...which discusses plate tectonics and the significance for paleo reconstructions. What do you think was happening more than 400 million years ago?

John Niclasen wrote:

2) Why does he show data about icecaps on land, when it is better to show data about Ice-rafted debris?

LOL! Okay this shows you don't seriously have a clue what you are talking about. By the way, your link goes nowhere.

The Jansen et al graph used by Alley wasn't showing "icecaps on land", it was showing how close icesheets came towards the equator during ice age periods (Paleolatitude). By the way, maybe you should find out what ice-rafted debris actually is instead of mindlessly parroting what you read on some blog. What a turkey!


John Niclasen wrote:
This graphics is from the book Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments p. 466:



We see four examples of "Ice house" (or ice ages, where we are in one right now). Of those four "Ice house", the two are at times with high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere: the one at about 440 mio. years ago (which adequate for Richard Alley lies before his start time in his graph), and the one at about 144 mio. years ago, which Richard Alley leaves out, because he only looks at icecaps on land.



The graph is Figure I10 from the chapter by Paul K Link. It's not particularly smart to post a graph from a paper or book you've clearly never read. You don't have a clue what you are looking at. Figure I10 shows an anti-correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and d18O values (proxy for oceanic temperature), which tracks the latitude of ice-rafted glacial debris.

As I doubt you are able to access it, I'll copy and paste from the chapter. Note the bolded:

"Late Ordovician and Early Silurian glaciations
During the Late Ordovician to early Silurian (_458–421 Ma),
short but severe glaciations affected areas of South Africa,
the Saharan region of North Africa, and South America as the
continents drifted over the South Pole. These glaciations were
primarily due to continental positioning, and did not represent
a global icehouse event. Atmospheric CO2 percentage was high
(Figure I10), but its effects were overridden by favorable continental
positioning of Gondwanaland near the South Pole
(Crowley and Berner, 2001)."


You appear to be blissfully unaware that 144 million years ago, it was the late Jurassic/early Cretaceous period. Dinosaurs ring a bell? The graph even says clearly "No polar ice caps recognised". You don't have a clue what you are even looking at, haven't even read the papers the graphs came from, yet you confidently accuse Prof Alley of lying. Typical.

John Niclasen wrote:
The following graphics is from an article in Nature 408 (December 7th 2000), Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon by Veizer et. al. and shows the same four cold periods in the last more than 500 million years.




And once again, you show you don't have clue what you are looking at and haven't read the paper or you would have read the description under the graph "The lighter blue shading for the Jurassic/Cretaceous icehouse reflects the fact that true polar ice caps have not been documented for this time interval" or that the paper was about Sea Surface Temperatures in the tropics.

Classic.


****crickets****



Edited on 31-01-2016 22:56
31-01-2016 23:26
Hank Samler
☆☆☆☆☆
(45)
In common usage you are correct, but in scientific usage (specifically climatology or oceanography) it means a reduction of pH

... hail, Nero!


Okay. Why is this? Why is it aloud to be used backwards - is it something like meters and yards?

Thanks, Hank
Edited on 31-01-2016 23:28
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate But the Climate is Always Changing!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Changing Climate of Public Opinion325-07-2019 01:59
The Changing Climate of Social Media012-07-2019 00:49
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
This is how our changing climate could increase the risk we face from hurricanes027-03-2019 15:54
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact