Ocean acidification

[k2skier]

Whenever I see this kind of behavior I know I hit a nerve....

SO....How long you going to live in mom's basement? I bet you're a thirty-something porn addict who doesn't leave the house until mom makes you mow the lawn or take out the trash... Either that or you're some maladjusted, socially inept, home schooled, teenage pimple popper with too much free time...
So which is it DR. Douchebag?

LOL, takes real special kind of social outcast to get on a web forum and claim to be a doctor.... Seriously, how many people do you really think believe your bullshit? Or even better how many PHD, Masters, or BA degree holders with real research jobs (like you claim you are) actually either have the time to spend on here that you do, or would even feel the need to come here and try to convince people they are a doctor and worry about what some web forum people think about AGW???

HAHHAHAHAHA! Thats the most damming thing about it all really.... Why would DR with a research job care what some internet forum people think? Is there a lack of compelling conversation amongst the so-called intellectual elite? LOL

Dude you are an idiot... Only an idiot would deny logic and reason because of a theory has to be true... Like Sherlock Holmes said; if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how highly improbable, must be the truth. And the claims of ocean acidification cause by atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a prime example of this....

Now DR. Douchebag, why don't you go and think for yourself once, and use your own logic and reason for a change. And stop parroting what some else tells you. You claim to be so educated and smart, why not show it for a change....

when youre badly losing an argument, accuse others of what youre doing (or are) lmfao, get a life

First post? No we see you have a lot of posts, but no rep power.... How does that happen? So many posts yet no rep....


HA! my azz, so whose little friend or sockpuppet are you? Very very mature...

cluelss fuckstick

 

[Old Rocks]

In the last year we have:

1. Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
2. Discovered sea level is dropping.
3. Found the bulk of ice caps are growing globally.
4. See that the lead science body has made a habit of manipulating data.
5. Know that opposition to the global warming group has been harassed in the science community.
6. Had to correct a great deal of results due to errors.
7. Found gross errors in UN climate documents.

On this board, a number of us have repeatedly shown the faithers to be absolutely certain of the warming and consider it settled science. konradv, please consider distancing yourself from the trolling so often done by Dr Gregg. There is hope for you still.

But no links to back a single statement. Just idiocy pulled out of your asshole.

 

[saveliberty]

In the last year we have:

1. Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
2. Discovered sea level is dropping.
3. Found the bulk of ice caps are growing globally.
4. See that the lead science body has made a habit of manipulating data.
5. Know that opposition to the global warming group has been harassed in the science community.
6. Had to correct a great deal of results due to errors.
7. Found gross errors in UN climate documents.

On this board, a number of us have repeatedly shown the faithers to be absolutely certain of the warming and consider it settled science. konradv, please consider distancing yourself from the trolling so often done by Dr Gregg. There is hope for you still.

But no links to back a single statement. Just idiocy pulled out of your asshole.

It is common knowledge at this point and has been posted in threads repeatedly. You are well aware of them and your insults have no effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the last year we have:

1. Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.



Why ClimateGate May Be Really Good For The Field (P.S. No Data Was Lost) | The Moderate Voice

First off, I have to express a little disappointment, because I planned to write this last night after reading some posts from yesterday and now it looks more like it’s a response to a recent guest post. I always planned on going with this title (sans the P.S.), but now it sounds a bit Orwellian in context. No matter.

OK, obviously it would be a huge travesty and very suspicious if raw unadjusted data was permanently destroy, but it was not. I will repeat, there is no raw data is gone for good. Period. End of statement.

So what did happen? CRU took the raw data from various primary sources, aggregated it and then made adjustments. It is some of the aggregation that they threw out when they moved a few decades ago. This means that the original data still exists at the primary sources and can be reaggregated. In fact, CRU is busy doing that just now.

Where did I get this information? From one of the largest thorns in the AGW community’s side, Roger Pielke Jr., who seems completely satisfied with their explanation.

Skeptics like Dr. Pielke claim that isn’t the entirety of the problem. Apparently most papers in the field rely on the adjusted data by CRU, and CRU hasn’t released the entirety of how they made the adjustments (they claim 95% of data sets have been available, I’m not qualified to say what that means). The skeptics assume they’ll disagree with some of the adjustments and want to see exactly what raw data CRU used and in what way they used it. This is of course an entirely reasonable request. It is also something that CRU now says they will do.

2. Discovered sea level is dropping.

Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise

Visual depictions of Sea Level Rise
Guest post by Peter Hogarth

Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

3. Found the bulk of ice caps are growing globally.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Well, no they are not, as the graph demonstrates.

4. See that the lead science body has made a habit of manipulating data.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/jones-and-cru-exonerated-by-parliamentary-inquiry/
Sorry, old sot, they have been exonerated.

5. Know that opposition to the global warming group has been harassed in the science community.

Really rough harassment. They have been told to present real evidence, not political talking points.

6. Had to correct a great deal of results due to errors.

Science is a constant process of correction. Unfortunetly, in this case, the estimates of the speed and depth of changes have been far too conservative.

7. Found gross errors in UN climate documents.

Errors, but not gross errors.

On this board, a number of us have repeatedly shown the faithers to be absolutely certain of the warming and consider it settled science. konradv, please consider distancing yourself from the trolling so often done by Dr Gregg. There is hope for you still.

But no links to back a single statement. Just idiocy pulled out of your asshole.

It is common knowledge at this point and has been posted in threads repeatedly. You are well aware of them and your insults have no effect.

Really? Repeatedly posted and shown to be totally wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

But no links to back a single statement. Just idiocy pulled out of your asshole.

It is common knowledge at this point and has been posted in threads repeatedly. You are well aware of them and your insults have no effect.

Really? Repeatedly posted and shown to be totally wrong.

Well, i'm going to look at this as progress. You admitted in whole or part that many of my points were true. I used documented research to disprove your sea level claim. You used a blog. Nice.

 

[gslack]

In order to refute, you need stuff to back it up. Simply making bullshit statements is not backing anything up. Maybe you should publish your results if you can refute the scientifically supported position of ocean acidification. Oh, that's right, you think you can refute stuff without showing any supporting evidence and scientifically supported facts

Quite funny to see you continually make an ass out of yourself

get off the forum child

They aren't bullshit statements dr douchebag, they are a challenge to the logic. A challenge that you have avoided like a plague, you and your little algorian pal. You keep posting all kinds of crap that does not address the point I raised and then try to contend it refutes something... Dumazz do you understand anything I say to you at all? Or are you too dam ignorant to understand how to think?

Do you understand critical thinking? How about logic? Do you get the fact there is an entire community of scientists all banking on this AGW being sound? Entire research budgets get granted and taken away based on its application to AGW and related studies. SO you will find peer reviewed papers to wipe the azz of every body on the planet and still have paper left. And in the end it won't make any of it any more true or factual than it was in al gores film...

Now grow up basement boy, you been caught trying to play doctor with the wrong man..... You are no scientists punk....

In science, you have to prove your logic. THis isn't philosophy where you just make wild statements without anything to back it up. That's what separates philosophy from science, in science you seek to support your logic is in fact true, until then, its nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit.
Funny you think you have better logic than the leading scientists in the matter that have been highly educated and are experts on the field.

YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.

Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...

I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?

I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation.

You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.

Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.

Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact. That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application. But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today.

They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.

But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....

You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention.

What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.

So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...

So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...

 

[Big Fitz]

In the last year we have:

1. Discovered raw data is almost impossible to retrieve.
2. Discovered sea level is dropping.
3. Found the bulk of ice caps are growing globally.
4. See that the lead science body has made a habit of manipulating data.
5. Know that opposition to the global warming group has been harassed in the science community.
6. Had to correct a great deal of results due to errors.
7. Found gross errors in UN climate documents.

On this board, a number of us have repeatedly shown the faithers to be absolutely certain of the warming and consider it settled science. konradv, please consider distancing yourself from the trolling so often done by Dr Gregg. There is hope for you still.

no no... we've moved on from that. Now it's gonna turn the ocean into giant pools of acid and eat us all up, yum.

If this is science, P.T. Barnum was a Physicist.

 

[Old Rocks]

They aren't bullshit statements dr douchebag, they are a challenge to the logic. A challenge that you have avoided like a plague, you and your little algorian pal. You keep posting all kinds of crap that does not address the point I raised and then try to contend it refutes something... Dumazz do you understand anything I say to you at all? Or are you too dam ignorant to understand how to think?

Do you understand critical thinking? How about logic? Do you get the fact there is an entire community of scientists all banking on this AGW being sound? Entire research budgets get granted and taken away based on its application to AGW and related studies. SO you will find peer reviewed papers to wipe the azz of every body on the planet and still have paper left. And in the end it won't make any of it any more true or factual than it was in al gores film...

Now grow up basement boy, you been caught trying to play doctor with the wrong man..... You are no scientists punk....

In science, you have to prove your logic. THis isn't philosophy where you just make wild statements without anything to back it up. That's what separates philosophy from science, in science you seek to support your logic is in fact true, until then, its nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit.
Funny you think you have better logic than the leading scientists in the matter that have been highly educated and are experts on the field.

YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.

Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...

I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?

I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation.

You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.

Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.

Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact.

There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.

That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application.

Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.

But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today.

They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.

But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....

Indeed, do you have a problem understanding rate of change? Life adapts readily to gradual changes over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Changes on the century or millinial scale is far differant. And the fossil record quite clearly shows that.

You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention.

What is contentuous about increasing CO2 in the oceans raising the acidity level? Straight forward chemistry. What is contentious about the fact that we are now actually measuring that increase?

What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.

So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.

So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...

So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is common knowledge at this point and has been posted in threads repeatedly. You are well aware of them and your insults have no effect.

Really? Repeatedly posted and shown to be totally wrong.

Well, i'm going to look at this as progress. You admitted in whole or part that many of my points were true. I used documented research to disprove your sea level claim. You used a blog. Nice.

SOS: Sea Level Rise

There are many questions surrounding climate change. One big question is how the changing climate will affect the oceans. The sea level has been steadily rising since 1900 at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters per year. In fact, since 1992 new methods of satellite altimetry using the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters per year. The Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC states that "there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. " - Fourth Assessment Report on Sea Level Rise Sea level can rise by two different mechanisms with respect to climate change. The first is the expansion of the sea water as the oceans warm due to an increasing global temperature. The second mechanism is the melting of ice over land, which then adds water to the ocean. The IPCC TAR predicts that total global-average sea level rise from 1990 - 2100 will be 110 to 770 millimeters (.77m).

 

[Old Rocks]

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise
Sea level rise
One of the most significant potential impacts of climate change is sea level rise that may cause inundation of coastal areas and islands, shoreline erosion, and destruction of important ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves. As global temperatures increase, sea level rises due to a thermal expansion of upper layers of the ocean and melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001) and Jason-2 (2008) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm. This climate record has continued with Jason-2 beginning in mid-2008.

Jason-2, launched 20 June 2008, is a joint effort between NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.

 

[saveliberty]

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise

Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry / Sea level rise
Sea level rise
One of the most significant potential impacts of climate change is sea level rise that may cause inundation of coastal areas and islands, shoreline erosion, and destruction of important ecosystems such as wetlands and mangroves. As global temperatures increase, sea level rises due to a thermal expansion of upper layers of the ocean and melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001) and Jason-2 (2008) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm. This climate record has continued with Jason-2 beginning in mid-2008.

Jason-2, launched 20 June 2008, is a joint effort between NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT).

The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site.

You mean the ARGO system. This blog shows global graphed data for all the data points from ARGO, which shows a 1mm/yr trend in sea level drop.

The Hockey Schtick: Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010

 

[gslack]

In science, you have to prove your logic. THis isn't philosophy where you just make wild statements without anything to back it up. That's what separates philosophy from science, in science you seek to support your logic is in fact true, until then, its nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit.
Funny you think you have better logic than the leading scientists in the matter that have been highly educated and are experts on the field.

YES YOU DO have to prove your logic. AND that is the problem with your parroting what others tell you without even checking it for obvious logical fallacies. You have done nothing but post crap after crap and then scream that its fact. When we point out problems in the basic premise and logic behind it, you post more of the same crap and then scream about it again. You never showed any bit of logic or reason, or even basic understanding of what you posted.

Want me to demonstrate fake dr boy?.... Here we go...

I have a close friend/co-worker who is a theoretical physicist. His capacity at work is the lead in our little group of number crunchers, coders, and analysts (me). Basically he oversees all our work and tries to keep things from going beyond the factual to the realm hypothetical. Understand so far?

I am the lead analyst, we work closely all the time. I kick my groups findings to him after I go over them, and then he makes sure my reasoning and logic are sound, and that I stay within the proper scope of the task and not venture into speculation.

You see thats the problem with our kind of work. It's real easy for relatively smart people to make assumptions based on their own preconceptions and thoughts. So we need two people to make sure we stay in the proper frame. I oversee the analysts, the coder lead oversees the coders, and my friend ( call him dave ) Dave oversees all of us. That process is essential to our work.

Now our findings and recommendations are only as sound as the data we derive it from. If we get an inaccurate report that is key to the premise, the report or recommendation will be off. And no amount of excuse making, stretching, or reaching for a hypothesis to secure that premise will change that. And that my ignorant little forum fake is how a scientific process is protected and maintained in research.

Your links, all of them all regard CO2 ocean acidification as fact.

There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.

That is their premise. However many scientists look at it in published journals and nod their heads that their equations and practices are correct according to what they see in the paper, it means nothing unless the theory holds up in real world application.

Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.

But we find fossil records stating that life that was particularly susceptible to Ocean acidification not only survived but evolved and thrived at times where the CO2 was 20 times the level of today.

They claim that even current levels of CO2 are causing severe problems with these same type of life forms in the oceans today, and if CO2 levels increase much more those life forms will perish. They even cite fossil evidence from the past showing what they believe to be mass extinctions, and they claim it was due to CO2 levels turning the oceans acidic.

But if that is the case, why did they not die off millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher? If they evolved some form of resistance to this back then, why didn't they evolve that resistance in the same manner again rather than die off? Why indeed....

Indeed, do you have a problem understanding rate of change? Life adapts readily to gradual changes over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Changes on the century or millinial scale is far differant. And the fossil record quite clearly shows that.

You see the problem here yet? Its a illogical to make assumptions either way especially when the premise is so full of holes and unexplainable points of contention.

What is contentuous about increasing CO2 in the oceans raising the acidity level? Straight forward chemistry. What is contentious about the fact that we are now actually measuring that increase?

What we have here is a series of organizations and research groups, all banking on this. We already know how research money is granted. hot ticket items get the bigger shares and fan fair. And AGW is the biggest ticket. You want funding? then it better be what will sell or what is wanted, and right now that is AGW. Its hip and cool and all the celebrities back it. And there are all those new grant allocations for climate change research or green tech.

So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.

So do you really think it is shocking when you can cite a review of a paper up for publication, that supports some form of climate change or CO2 theory from a group who tells you in their mission statement they are in fact trying to prove climate change and educate on it? Give me a break..... Of course they will publish, its the dream of most scientists these days. And if you want the recognition of your peers you will publish, publish, publish...

So do us all a favor and stop with ignorant childish wannabe scientist crap. its fake and it shows...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.

There have been many, many studies, measurements of the increasing acidity, worldwide. That is a fact.

Many, many studies about ocean acidity which already make the assumption of it being caused by CO2 you idiot. When the fact is there no less than 6 other compounds rated above CO2 whose fluctuations could result in ocean acidity levels rising. But you and your algorian dipshits, pseudo-scientists and even real scientists who have their professional reputation riding on CO2 alone being the cause seem determined to ignore those all and focus on this one possibility. The fact is any of the 7 alone could be the cause, yet the7y and you want this to be the cause and forget everything else....

Well retard that just isn't good enough anymore... Look at all the things scientists have been not just wrong about, but dangerously wrong about. DDT, X-Rays, everyday we see this or that medication which was created, examined, tested, and given the go ahead by scientists has now been found to do more harm than it ever did good. For all of that crap alone I can tell them and you to kiss my azz on this theory.

Ain't a real world application, boy. It is measured data.

And statements like that are why we know you are no scientist.... Real world application is the goal of scientific theory you imbecile.... If its just supposed to be a theory with no real use than its just rambling. The ignorance you just displayed in that is astounding even for a basement dwelling forum troll. The very core of scientific research hopes for one day a real world application.... What a freakin moron....

So that is the ethics of your group. Most people in science are a good deal more ethical than that.

Moron why don't you tell me what my side is then.... Azzhole you don't even understand the idea that this is not about republican or democrat or liberal versus conservative. Why don't you ask about my political standing first before you make assumptions like a real scientist would....

Scientists more ethical huh? Okay like the ones who work for Monsanto? Yeah they made DDT, then tried to cover up its bad side effects. And today they are helping to create a new system of seed, fertilizer and pesticide which are dependent on one another. This will force farmers to buy Monsanto round-up ready seed every season. Have their products copyrighted and got the courts to declare saving their seed each season is illegal. They also have scientists who created Bovine Growth Hormone which has been talked about all over the press for its destructive and dangerous results on both dairy cows and the milk they produce.

or how about the scientists who made all those medicines that are continually turning up deadly. Scientists helped to create all those ephedrine energy supplements which are now illegal. Scientists told us that tobacco was harmless or even actually healthy at one time. In fact scientists work in the freaking labs that still churn out more and new ways to get nicotine into peoples system. Scientists are the ones who make WMD's, biological weapons and many many other terrible things that should not have been invented..

Why? Because they get so wrapped up in if they can do this, they forget to examine if they should. They are so eager to be successful and or famous for a theory or discovery, they don't even give a second thought before they jump. This is a business to them every bit as real as Big Oil.

That was another telling example of how you are no scientist. All scientists know there are just as many unethical shits in the scientific fields as there are in any other. Education doesn't necessitate ethics, and brains doesn't equate decency. Hitler was a genius too...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

Only an idiotic fake like you would deny solid logic and reason because it wasn't peer reviewed. And whats worse no real scientist would go to a web forum and demand every refutation have a peer reviewed paper to back it up.. This isn't yale or harvard, and its not MIT, its a web forum douchebag...

You couldn't out yourself as a fake any more than you just have...

Once again, the ridiculous ranting of a someone on a message board, without a single citation to back it up.

The increase in adidity in the oceans is a measured fact.

An increase in CO2 content in the ocean will result in increased acidity is what Chemical theory states, and is being validated by present observations.

No amount of obfuscation on your part can change any of this.

Measured fact? Well then it shouldn't be a problem for you to show some actual real world evidence of this... Not the crap you have been posting because all of it is operating on the assumption of it being fact already....

CO2 can effect PH balance but the effect is based on other compounds. CO2 is a amplifier to those other elements resulting in PH fluctuations. If those compounds change in essence or volume and CO2 is present then we see the change. The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.

The way they make the claim is "CO2 causes ocean acidity". When the true way to say it would be "CO2 reacting with other compounds can cause ocean acidity". The volume or amount of CO2 can alter PH but only if the other compounds are present and in correct quantities and distribution. Co2 alone is no where near a threat no matter how much we make. CO2 with other compounds in correct conditions and criteria is another matter.

And those other compounds and their required conditions are left out of the claims made by the algorians and their bought and paid for researchers.

Now want to debate the logic feel free. Want to go and google to see if my claims about CO2 chemical reactions and requiring other compounds to effect PH? Please knock yourself out.... BUt don't cry and tell me its not scientific just because its not from a green blog linked peer reviewed paper, because thats just juvenile..

 

[Old Rocks]

A much more factual blog. However, since I posted several referances to Peer Reviewed articles confiming the increasing rate of sea level rise, blogs are really not needed.

A broader view of sea level rise

Tuesday, 12 May, 2009
A broader view of sea level rise
The last post on sea level rise emphasised that when analysing sea level rise (or any climate trends for that matter), it's inadequate to use just a few year's worth of data. However, I only went back 16 years. To obtain a more complete picture of sea level rise, I'm taking my own advice and going back to 1870.

Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks. The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.

To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006) which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 1

 

[Old Rocks]

gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.

 

[gslack]

gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.

Oldsocks, you are an al gore faithful, your jumping from this part of AGW theory to the other without affirming the original is evidence to that. in this thread alone you have tried desperately to not prove this or that part of it right, but rather to confound the thread with an endless barrage of crap all saying the same thing. you don't really care if the theory is sound, all you care about is pushing it because they tell you to...

So why don't you just kiss my azz. I know you didn't read it, you never even read the crap you parrot or post here. And that is an established fact...

 

[konradv]

The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.
----------------------

That's patently false! Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.
----------------------

That's patently false! Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!

ZOMG!!! Fizzy soda is melting the ice caps and turning the oceans onto stomach acid!

 

[gslack]

The reality is CO2 volume has little to do with actual PH balance without those other elements.
----------------------

That's patently false! Bubble CO2 into distilled water and, despite there being NO other elements present, the pH WILL GO DOWN!

Look dufus, if you aren't going to use the quote feature. and you aren't going to read my post fully and comment on it fairly, than why don't you sit quietly somewhere...

Had you actually read my post or were even capable of understanding it, you would realize I explained the CO2 theory in a simplified manner. Even DR. DOuchebage and oldsoxks haven't tried denying....

look carefully.... You are the only moron fro your side left on this thread now. There is a reason for that, its cause they checked my explanation and found it correct, or they knew it correct on their own and knew better than to try and argue it.

CO2 alone will not effect PH balance in water on its own enough to make any real measurable difference in the ocean. It takes other elements for CO2 to react with to effect the kind of PH shift your scientists are claiming. They (scientists) know this but its more popular and gets more grant money if they simplify it and simply say CO2 did it. Technically correct in a sense, but also completely wrong in reality and real world application. It does effect PH but ti takes the presence of those other elements to do any real drastic changes.

SO again quote me fairly worm, or just stop talking to me. Your rudeness and desire to oppose the accepted way we quote people here for no reason other than you wanting to be a douchebag, is intolerable. I don't send my kids out in the world if they can't function and work with others. SO I refuse to accept it from other peoples kid..

 

[Dr Gregg]

gslack, did not even bother to read more than three sentences into your silly rant. You are just not worth the time to reply.

Oldsocks, you are an al gore faithful, your jumping from this part of AGW theory to the other without affirming the original is evidence to that. in this thread alone you have tried desperately to not prove this or that part of it right, but rather to confound the thread with an endless barrage of crap all saying the same thing. you don't really care if the theory is sound, all you care about is pushing it because they tell you to...

So why don't you just kiss my azz. I know you didn't read it, you never even read the crap you parrot or post here. And that is an established fact...

So dumb, Al Gore has nothing to do with the science, he's just a spokesperson. The actual science and what actual scientists have to say that matters. Once again, shows you know shit about science if you are going to claim Al Gore has anything to do with the science behind global warming

 

[Dr Gregg]

gsucks, such scientific words you use. THe words moron, asshole, and all the other shit you spew are such scientific terms

Why do people bother trolling? WHat do they get out of it?