Arctic ice thins dramatically

[RollingThunder]

What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science. What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science. My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.

So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.

In case you have not noticed, Bentwired, both socialism and capitialism are social tools, to be used where they work the best for all the citizens. When one tool is failing in a significant way, such as capitalism in Healthcare, time to try the other tool. But there are always the fools that will insist on using a wrench when they need a screwdriver.

Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?

I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static.

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 in the oceans has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:

A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "Ocean Ph" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "degrees" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.

In case you have not noticed, Bentwired, both socialism and capitialism are social tools, to be used where they work the best for all the citizens. When one tool is failing in a significant way, such as capitalism in Healthcare, time to try the other tool. But there are always the fools that will insist on using a wrench when they need a screwdriver.

Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?

I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static.

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 in the oceans has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:

A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "Ocean Ph" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "degrees" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

I want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying because you Warmers are impossible to pin down an exactly what this "theory" is.

The science is "Settled" so I want to make certain I understand it

I deduce from your post that CO2 has increased lets call it 150PPM of which 40PPM gets sucked up by the ocean and 110PPM of the "deadly" CO2 stays in the air (let's forget for a second if that how it really works, OK? That's how you say it works).

Are you alleging that the 40PPM of atmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .1?

Your brother in Faith Chris linked to another "Settled Science" article claiming a drop of at least .3 Ph. That's why I have to keep asking any of you to state exactly what this "theory" of yours is. The article is very vague in allocating CO2 increase between the local vents in the ocean floor and "manMade" CO2, but trust us, this ManMade CO2 will kill all the coral.

http://news.uk.msn.com/environment/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157927333

 

[RollingThunder]

Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?

I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static.

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 in the oceans has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:

A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "Ocean Ph" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "degrees" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

I want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying because you Warmers are impossible to pin down an exactly what this "theory" is.

The science is "Settled" so I want to make certain I understand it

I deduce from your post that CO2 has increased lets call it 150PPM of which 40PPM gets sucked up by the ocean and 110PPM of the "deadly" CO2 stays in the air (let's forget for a second if that how it really works, OK? That's how you say it works).

Are you alleging that the 40PPM of atmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .1?

Scientists figure that the oceans have been absorbing about 2.3 billion metric tons a year. They've probably absorbed at least 60 or 70 gigatons since the start of the industrial revolution. Here's some information on how it all works from a European Science website, the European Project on OCean Acidification (EPOCA). The material is free to reproduce for educational purposes and is not under restrictive copyright.

What is ocean acidification?

The consequences of man's use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in terms of global warming has not escaped anyones attention. Ocean acidification is another, and much less known, result of the approximately 79 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere every day, not only as a result of fossilfuel burning but also of deforestation and production of cement (7). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, about one third ofthe CO2 released in the atmosphere by anthropogenic (human-caused) activities has been absorbed by the world’s oceans,which play a key role in moderating climate change (5). Without this capacity of the oceans, the CO2 content in the atmosphere would have been much higher and global warming and its consequences more dramatic. The impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems are still poorly known but one of the most likely consequences is the slower growth of organisms forming calcareous skeletons or shells, suchas corals and mollusks.

The carbon cycle

Inorder to understand ocean acidification and its possible impacts, one needs to understand the behaviour of carbon in nature. Carbon, as other elements, is circulating in different chemical forms and between different parts of the Earth system (atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans). These fluxes of carbon in inorganic (e.g. CO2) and organic forms (sugar and more complex carbohydrates in the biosphere) constitute the carbon cycle. In a very short time span, human activities use an old reservoir of carbon (fossil fuels) which took millions of years to accumulate, thus creating a new and massive flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. The oceans can mitigate this additional carbon dioxide flux and thus help moderate global warming but this is not without consequences.

The world's oceans play a fundamental role in the exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere and constitute an important sink for atmospheric CO2. Once dissolved in sea water, carbon dioxide is subject to two possible fates. It can either be used by photosynthesis or other physiological processes, or remain free in its differentdissolved forms in the water. The latter leads to ocean acidification.

The chemical process of ocean acidification

There is a constant exchange between the upper layers of the oceans and the atmosphere. Nature strives towards equilibrium, and thus for the ocean and the atmosphere to contain equal concentrations of CO2. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere therefore dissolves in the surfacewaters of the oceans in order to establish a concentration inequilibrium with that of the atmosphere. As CO2 dissolves in the ocean it generates dramatic changes in sea water chemistry. CO2 reacts with water molecules (H2O) and forms the weak acid H2CO3 (carbonic acid). Most of this acid dissociates into hydrogen ions (H+) and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). The increase in H+ ions reduces pH (measure of acidity) and the oceans acidify, that is they become more acidic or rather less alkaline since although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of water with a neutral pH). The average pH of today's surface waters is 8.1, which is approximately 0.1 pH units less than the estimated pre-industrial value 200 years ago (2,3).

Projections of future changes

Modeling demonstrates that if CO2 continues to be released on current trends, ocean average pH will reach 7.8 by the end of this century, corresponding to 0.5 units below the pre-industrial level, a pH level that has not been experienced for several millions of years (1). A change of 0.5 units might not sound as a very big change, but the pH scale is logaritmic meaning that such achange is equivalent to a three fold increase in H+ concentration. All this is happening at a speed 100 times greater than has ever been observed during the geological past. Several marine species, communities and ecosystems might not have the time to acclimate or adapt to these fast changes in ocean chemistry.

Possible consequences on marine organisms

The dissolution of carbon dioxide in sea water not only provokes an increase in hydrogen ions and thus a decline in pH, but also a decreasein a very important form of inorganic carbon: the carbonate ion (CO32-). Numerous marine organisms such as corals, mollusks, crustaceans and seaurchins rely on carbonate ions to form their calcareous shells or skeletons in a process known as calcification. The concentration of carbonate ions in the ocean largely determines whether there is dissolution or precipitation of aragonite and calcite, the two natural polymorphs of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), secreted in the form of shells or skeletons by these organisms. Today, surface waters are super saturated with respect to aragonite and calcite, meaning that carbonate ions are abundant. This super saturation is essential, not only for calcifying organisms to produce their skeletons or shells, but also to keep these structures intact. Existing shells and skeletons might dissolve if pH reach lower values, and the oceans turn corrosive for these organisms. Consequently, the results ofthe decrease in carbonate ions might be catastrophic for calcifying organisms which play an important role in the food chain and form diverse habitats helping the maintenance of biodiversity.

The magnitude of ocean acidification can be predicted with a high level of confidence since the ocean chemistry is well known. But the impacts of the acidification on marine organisms and their ecosystems is much less predictable. Not only calcifying organisms are potentially affected by ocean acidification. Other main physiological processes such as reproduction, growth and photosynthesis are susceptible to be impacted, possibly resulting in an important loss in marine biodiversity. But it is also possible that some species, like seagrasses that uses CO2 for photosynthesis, are positively influenced by ocean acidification. Ocean acidification research is still in its infancy and more studies are required to answer the numerous questions related to its biological and biogeochemical consequences.

References:
1) Caldeira, K., Wickett, M.E., 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425 (6956): 365–365.
2) Key, R.M.; Kozyr, A.; Sabine, C.L.; Lee, K.; Wanninkhof, R.; Bullister, J.; Feely, R.A.; Millero, F.; Mordy, C. and Peng, T.-H. (2004). "A global ocean carbon climatology: Results from GLODAP". Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18
3) Orr J. C., Fabry V. J., Aumont O., Bopp L., Doney S. C., Feely R. A. et al. 2005. "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact oncalcifying organisms". Nature 437 (7059): 681–686.
4) Raven, J. A. et al. 2005. Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Royal Society, London, UK.
5) Sabine C. L. et al., 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science 305:367-371.
6) Martin S. et al. 2008. Ocean acidification and its consequences. French ESSP Newsletter 21: 5-16.
7) IPCC 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers.

For more information on ocean acidification, carbonate chemistry and the carbon cycle, see the key documents and web resources.

Glossary

Acclimate - To accustom or become accustomed to a new environment or situation.

Aragonite - An orthorhombic (system of crystallization characterized by three unequal axes at right angles to each other) mineral form of crystalline calcium carbonate, dimorphous with calcite

Biosphere – The living organisms and their environment

Calcite - A common crystalline form of natural calcium carbonate, CaCO3, that is the basic constituent of limestone, marble, and chalk. Also called calcspar.

Inorganic - Involving neither organic life nor the products of organic life

Ocean acidification – The process by which carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, giving rise to a decrease in pH and other changes in ocean carbonate chemistry

Organic - Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms

pH – Measure of acidity (pH= -log[H+])

Photosynthesis - The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.

Phytoplankton - Minute, free-floating aquatic plants (algae, protists, and cyanobacteria).

Polymorph – Chemistry: A specific crystalline form of a compound that can crystallize in different forms.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[RWatt]

Arctic ice seems to be tracking at or slightly below 2010 at the moment:

 

[RollingThunder]

Greenland is part of the Arctic ice that is being lost to global warming. Here's some new research, using some new techniques, that highlights the continuing and accelerating ice mass loss from Greenland that is helping to raise sea levels.

2 Greenland Glaciers Lose Enough Ice to Fill Lake Erie

ScienceNewsLine
Published: May 25, 2011
Ohio State University
(excerpts)

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study aimed at refining the way scientists measure ice loss in Greenland is providing a “high-definition picture” of climate-caused changes on the island. And the picture isn’t pretty. In the last decade, two of the largest three glaciers draining that frozen landscape have lost enough ice that, if melted, could have filled Lake Erie. “Jakobshavn alone drains somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of all the ice flowing outward from inland to the sea,” explained Ian Howat, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. His study appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As the second largest holder of ice on the planet, and the site of hundreds of glaciers, Greenland is a natural laboratory for studying how climate change has affected these ice fields. Researchers focus on the “mass balance” of glaciers, the rate of new ice being formed as snow falls versus the flow of ice out into the sea. “Kangerdlugssuaq would have to stop flowing and accumulate snowfall for seven years to regain the ice it has lost,” said Howat, also a member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.

The real value of the research, however, is the confirmation that the new techniques Howat and his colleagues developed will provide scientists a more accurate idea of exactly how much ice is being lost. Past estimates, he said, have been merely snapshots of what was going on at these glaciers in terms of mass loss. “We really need to sample them very frequently or else we won’t really know how much change has occurred. This new research pumps up the resolution and gives us a kind of high-definition picture of ice loss,” he said. To get this longer-timeframe image, Howat and colleagues drew on data sets provided by at least seven orbiting satellites and airplanes, as well as other sources.

© 2011 ScienceNewsline

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?

I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static.

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 in the oceans has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:

A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "Ocean Ph" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "degrees" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

I want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying because you Warmers are impossible to pin down an exactly what this "theory" is.

The science is "Settled" so I want to make certain I understand it

I deduce from your post that CO2 has increased lets call it 150PPM of which 40PPM gets sucked up by the ocean and 110PPM of the "deadly" CO2 stays in the air (let's forget for a second if that how it really works, OK? That's how you say it works).

Are you alleging that the 40PPM of atmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .1?

Your brother in Faith Chris linked to another "Settled Science" article claiming a drop of at least .3 Ph. That's why I have to keep asking any of you to state exactly what this "theory" of yours is. The article is very vague in allocating CO2 increase between the local vents in the ocean floor and "manMade" CO2, but trust us, this ManMade CO2 will kill all the coral.

Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' -  Environment | MSN News - MSN UK

Frank old boy, you are one stupid ass. The article did not claim the drop was 0.3. The article stated that the seeps created a localized effect that in places was down to 7.7, which killed the reefs.

It then went on to state that the predicted ph for the ocean in 2100 is 7.8. Which is right on the edge of extinction for most corals. As the title of the article states.

Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' -  Environment | MSN News - MSN UK

Coral reefs around the world could be teetering on the brink of extinction by the end of the century as the oceans become more acidic, scientists have warned.

New evidence from volcanic seeps - fissures in the ocean floor that leak gases and minerals - suggests a bleak future for the reefs that harbour the world's richest marine ecosystems.

Three natural carbon dioxide (CO2) seeps in Papua New Guinea have given scientists a snapshot of how coral reefs may look in 100 years.

Like man-made sources of carbon dioxide, the seeps are making the water around them more acidic.

The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.

 

[wirebender]

Actually, I was primarily, and initially thinking about the involved military analyses and researches from the ‘30s forward which have been involve in comprehensive full-depth analyses of the Earth’s atmosphere and its properties. This data and the understandings it has provided were necessary to the production of advanced guidance, sensor/imaging and tracking systems; spysats to sidewinders, handheld thermal-imagers to IV generation FLIR systems.

None of those analyses provide evidence of downdwelling radiation or a greenhouse effect. The instrumentation used for military use was cooled to a temperature of -4 degrees F or thereabouts so that the recieving instrument would not be warmer than the emitter. Same issue as before except the recieving station was artifically cooled. In either case, no evidence of backradiation or a greenhouse effect was produced.

These same understandings and data, provide a gold mine to atmospheric researchers and climatologists, and provide one of the major sources of new support and conformational support for more direct climate researches and studies.

No understanding at all is being realized when the Stefan-Boltzman equations are being misinterpreted and misused.

You are not questioning “climate science,” you are questioning extensive findings, data and understandings throughout many fields of science and scientific methodology!

As noted, the "findings" don't apply to climate science.

Did you even attempt to visit and go through any of the references presented? All of these issues of practice, procedure and general methodology are discussed in most of the individual papers and all of the general climate science textbooks I presented,

Actually, none of the issues I brought up were covered anywhere I could find. Of course, that isn't surprising since the hoax must be continued.

I urge you to go back and brush upon on some of the basics of chemistry and physics that are really helpful in understanding what is actually happening and why.

Interesting. You believe I should brush up on the basics when it is you who has been taken in by a hoax. You want some basics. Here is a basic that disproves greenhouse theory as it is described. The testing had nothing to do with climate science and was not performed by climate scientists. Perhaps that is how the data managed to make it to the mainstream unmassaged.

Some time back, some students at BYU did some experimentation with an easy to fabricate solar oven for use in third world countries. The location and description of the oven as well as plans for fabrication a description of the experiment and some tasty recipes can be found here and here.

The third section from the bottom is what particularly interests me. Here is a clip from the page:

"The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky. [11] For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. [8] So the heat should be radiated outward. Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object.[7] The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C. [2] So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere."

The oven could even be used to make ICE when the ambient temperature was 47.5 degrees F.

If downdwelling radiation exists and the resulting greenhoues effect claimed, then explain how the solar oven could produce ice when according to the hypothesis, downdwelling radiation from greenhouse gasses is available day or night. For that matter, explain how cooling could be achieved during the day when downdwelling radiation could not be escaped.

Which law of physics do you believe supports the notion that greenhouse gasses radiate IR from the earth back towards the earth and at the same time would allow the formation of ice at 47.5 degrees F?

 

[wirebender]

Why do the real scientists fudge data??

They don't.

Why are you and wiredbent such fudge packers?

Of course they do and the evidence has been presented to you repeatedly. The fact that showing you such evidence results in you clapping your hands over your ears, shuttting your eyes, and yelling LA LA LA at the top of your lungs doesn't alter the fact that climate science routinely manipulates the data in whatever way they feel necessary to perpetuate the hoax.

Here are a few examples:

The alterations to the data are quite obvious. Make the past cooler and warm the present.

The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale) | Watts Up With That?

Again, adjusting down the past temperatures in order to create unprecedented warming in the present.

GISS Vs NCDC Using The Same Baseline | Real Science

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e60ebfc83970c-pi

NASA – Heating Up Antarctica | Real Science

Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?

One of the more blatant examples of fraudulent data in an effort to create the illusion of more warming. Whatever it takes to keep those research dollars coming in.

ICECAP

Yet more evidence of altering the temperature record.

ICECAP

More evidence of adjusting the past downward and the present upward.

Cooking The Books At USHCN | Real Science

And example of blatant omission of data in an effort to create the illusion of unprecedented changes in the present.

Hide the Decline: Sciencemag # 3 « Climate Audit

This is a good one. Hansen wants to impress you with the increase in ocean heat content so he shows you a graph; but wait you say, the records go back to the middle 1500's so why establish a cut off date of 1980? When you look at the record going back to the 1500's it becomes abundantly clear why he would cut the record off at 1980. When you look at the entire record it is clear that nothing unprecedented at all is going on today. You guys love to establish cut off dates in an effort to make the present look unprecedented. That is fraud as well my friend.

C3: Fabricating Climate Science The Old-Fashioned NASA Way: It's 2011 And Hansen Still Pulls This Bullsh^t

Here is a good one. Lets create the illusion that Hawaii is burning up. Of course when you look at the actual data, the illusion dries up.

I can go on and on with this. How much more would you like to see. The fact is that at present, the record has been so manipulated and tampered with by climate scientists trying to prove a lie that it simply can no longer be trusted.

 

[wirebender]

The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging. It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment. In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....riiiiight, wiredbent, you know better than all of those professional scientists.....I guess one of the mental illnesses that the doctors are treating you for must be 'megalomania with paranoid delusions'.

No actual answer I see. Just the usual impotent insult. Feel free to prove that the claim I made was false and that Stefan-Boltzman does not calculate for a blackbody radiating into a space maintaining 0 degrees Kelvin.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What are the chances that this year breaks the record for the lowest sea ice in recorded history in the arctic?

 

[RWatt]

The alterations to the data are quite obvious. Make the past cooler and warm the present.

Alterations to such data are to be expected. For example the UAH satellite record run by Roy Spencer has been adjusted upwards much more than that record above. When errors are found they must be corrected, irregardless of whether that alters the record. It would be rather odd if Hansen was the only scientist not to have to make corrections or adjustments to records.

Once more, adjusting the past down and the present up in an effort to produce the appearance of more warming.

The same argument as above goes. What I wanted to mention here is as a point of interest the caption is slightly wrong. Temperature data is not input into climate models, the climate models don't work by extrapolating past temperature changes.

C3: Fabricating Fake Global Warming? Evidence of Manipulating U.S. Temperature Data To "Prove" Human-CO2 Warming?

One of the more blatant examples of fraudulent data in an effort to create the illusion of more warming. Whatever it takes to keep those research dollars coming in.

The first two graphs are GISTEMP land stations only. The last graph is GISTEMP land+ocean. And that's why they look so different in the positions marked, not because they've been altered. (another reason the first two look so different is that the y-axis scaling is very different on each)

Here for example is the GISTEMP 1980 graph overlaid on a GISTEMP 2010 graph. Pretty much identical considering GISTEMP didn't really exist in 1980 and that graph is actually a prototype for what would become GISTEMP.

And if we do the same with the 1987 GISTEMP graph again it lines up very well:

See this for details:
Climate WTF: GISTEMP attacked again

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd sure like it if you gave up on showing us how much of a clueless idiot you are, Crusty. I'd miss the laughs but we really don't need the braindead static.

Everything about this nonsense of yours is wrong and just a demonstration of how little you understand. It is not the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is changing the pH levels in the oceans, although they are linked. It is the fact that the oceans have absorbed about one third of the excess fossil carbon CO2 that mankind has pumped into the atmosphere and that amount of extra CO2 in the oceans has shifted the pH balance to being slightly less alkaline. As NOAA puts it:

A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.​

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have gone up from about 280ppm to 393ppm or 113ppm, not the 60ppm you keep moronically mis-stating. So you're wrong there too. "Ocean Ph" is wrong. It is abbreviated 'pH', dumbass. These pH levels are not measured in "degrees" either, so you're wrong again there too. You are even more ignorant than your average denier cult troll.

Here's some facts from NOAA.

What is Ocean Acidification? - The Chemistry

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

I want to be absolutely sure I understand what you're saying because you Warmers are impossible to pin down an exactly what this "theory" is.

The science is "Settled" so I want to make certain I understand it

I deduce from your post that CO2 has increased lets call it 150PPM of which 40PPM gets sucked up by the ocean and 110PPM of the "deadly" CO2 stays in the air (let's forget for a second if that how it really works, OK? That's how you say it works).

Are you alleging that the 40PPM of atmospheric CO2 dropped ocean Ph by .1?

Your brother in Faith Chris linked to another "Settled Science" article claiming a drop of at least .3 Ph. That's why I have to keep asking any of you to state exactly what this "theory" of yours is. The article is very vague in allocating CO2 increase between the local vents in the ocean floor and "manMade" CO2, but trust us, this ManMade CO2 will kill all the coral.

Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' - *Environment | MSN News - MSN UK

Frank old boy, you are one stupid ass. The article did not claim the drop was 0.3. The article stated that the seeps created a localized effect that in places was down to 7.7, which killed the reefs.

It then went on to state that the predicted ph for the ocean in 2100 is 7.8. Which is right on the edge of extinction for most corals. As the title of the article states.

Coral reefs 'on edge of extinction' - *Environment | MSN News - MSN UK

Coral reefs around the world could be teetering on the brink of extinction by the end of the century as the oceans become more acidic, scientists have warned.

New evidence from volcanic seeps - fissures in the ocean floor that leak gases and minerals - suggests a bleak future for the reefs that harbour the world's richest marine ecosystems.

Three natural carbon dioxide (CO2) seeps in Papua New Guinea have given scientists a snapshot of how coral reefs may look in 100 years.

Like man-made sources of carbon dioxide, the seeps are making the water around them more acidic.

The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.

That's science? Measuring effect near a deep ocean vent and extrapolating ocean wide is what's science?

I predict you will never post a lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 does any of the crap you claim.

Using the same "Science" if you measured temperature near an erupting volcano we predict that Earth will become a planet of molten lava with a surface temperature of 500 degrees.

Moron

 

[RWatt]

The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.

That's science? Measuring effect near a deep ocean vent and extrapolating ocean wide is what's science? I predict you will never post a lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 does any of the crap you claim.

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do the real scientists fudge data??

They don't.

Why are you and wiredbent such fudge packers?

Of course they do and the evidence has been presented to you repeatedly.

LOLOLOL....yeah but the problem is....your so-called "evidence" is just more pseudo-science and ignorant nonsense from a bunch of idiotic, anti-science denier cult blogs, like 'Wattsupmybutt', Steven Goddard's 'Real (Phony) Science', Steve McIntrye's 'Climate Audinut', Exxon sponsored 'ICECAP' or anonymous nutjob blog 'C3'. You're gullible enough and certainly scientifically ignorant enough to fall for that bullshit but real scientists just laugh at it. As would most everybody with any knowledge of the history of climate science and even a basic understanding of the evidence and how much research has gone into this field of study and how often early estimates get refined based on better data or better analysis. It's how science works but you're too generally ignorant about science to grasp that fact. And that's why your "evidence" only shows up on propaganda blogs aimed at ignorant, paranoid, moronic fucks like you instead of being published in a real science journal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The study showed reductions in reef diversity and complexity as pH values fell from 8.1 to 7.8, indicating greater acidity. At values below 7.7, reef development ceased altogether.

That's science? Measuring effect near a deep ocean vent and extrapolating ocean wide is what's science? I predict you will never post a lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 does any of the crap you claim.

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

No. Because that's how science is done. Can show us how you eliminated all variables except for (5, 60, 100 PPM) increase in CO2? No!

That's why Global Warming is not even a theory because theories get tested. It's a hunch or some stupid notion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.

 

[RWatt]

That's science? Measuring effect near a deep ocean vent and extrapolating ocean wide is what's science? I predict you will never post a lab experiment showing how a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 does any of the crap you claim.

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

No. Because that's how science is done. Can show us how you eliminated all variables except for (5, 60, 100 PPM) increase in CO2? No!

That's why Global Warming is not even a theory because theories get tested. It's a hunch or some stupid notion.

Do you realize that it's not possible to test the entire atmosphere in a lab? It can't be scaled down to fit into a lab in order to experiment on eliminating variables.

Given it's not possible would you conclude science is powerless to ever understand weather and climate? Or do you suspect there might be some other way of figuring these things out?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.

I reject it because it fails the most basic requirements of scientific testing, or rather when subject to testing your "theory" fails.

You can only resuscitate it by keeping it out of the lab.

You can only show that a 60% CO2 atmosphere has some slight effect on temperature, you fail when you test it on the order of magnitude you claim

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But even if he did post a lab experiment showing it, wouldn't you just argue that extrapolating a lab planet wide is not science, as you've done here with the vent?

No. Because that's how science is done. Can show us how you eliminated all variables except for (5, 60, 100 PPM) increase in CO2? No!

That's why Global Warming is not even a theory because theories get tested. It's a hunch or some stupid notion.

Do you realize that it's not possible to test the entire atmosphere in a lab? It can't be scaled down to fit into a lab in order to experiment on eliminating variables.

Given it's not possible would you conclude science is powerless to ever understand weather and climate? Or do you suspect there might be some other way of figuring these things out?

If you can't eliminate variables, how can you claim you've limited the "warming" to CO2?

Moreover, why can't you show ANY of the effect you allege in a lab given a 100PPM increase in CO2. Protons decay more readily than CO2 rasies temperature in the amounts you allege

 

[ScienceRocks]

Exactly. This is just about a perfect lab experiment. But Franky rejects it because it does not fit the way he thinks things ought to be. Rejection of reality doesn't change reality one bit.

I reject it because it fails the most basic requirements of scientific testing, or rather when subject to testing your "theory" fails.

You can only resuscitate it by keeping it out of the lab.

You can only show that a 60% CO2 atmosphere has some slight effect on temperature, you fail when you test it on the order of magnitude you claim

I say co2 can cause a pretty solid effect on a Atmospheres temperature "if" there is high percentage of it being co2. Venus with its 97 percent co2 Atmosphere is case in point to this...Heat can only increase temperature if the Atmospheric density is dense enough to bring the molecules close enough together to hit each other. If they're far apart like on mars they make very little heat much alike our thermalsphere can be thousands of degree's and if you could feel the air it wouldn't feel hot. Earth's Atmosphere doesn't have the thickness of Venuses, so part of the 900+ f the surface of that planet is partly because of that and the 20 million miles closer to the sun, but a increase in co2 "if" co2 on earth where to increase to 10, 20, 50, 70 or 90 percent would have a very real effect on the surface temperature of our planet.

Now I don't know the effect 60 or 130 ppm increase in co2 would cause. Maybe not much at all or maybe our green friends could be right. I don't know.