But the Climate is Always Changing!

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.

spot wrote: What for proving different substances have different properties?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

... the evidence-based science from experts on the earth's climate history like Professor Richard Alley

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.

People like your 'believe' everything as long as it is told by some idiotic professor with fancy formulas and graphs.

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?

John Niclasen wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ...

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

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.

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"

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

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.

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

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.

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!"

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!"

Ceist wrote: "It's a squirrel! You're just stupid!"

spot wrote:
link doesn't work spongebob must have been dissolved due to oceanic acidification.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

DRKTS wrote:The pH has dropped from 8.25 to 8.1

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.

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.

spot wrote: According to my sources ... so it is changing again your proven wrong.

Buildreps wrote:It's going to neutral, funny boy.

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.

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.

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

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

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.


.

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.

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

... hail, Nero!