The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[Coyote]

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

What is the spacial proximity of ice core data? What does a one layer actually span in time? single days of frozen, melt, refreeze? how did they determine the length of each core layer in time? What are the effects of open air above the layers and water penetration of the layers during warm periods?

I'm guessing your questions relate to the wide margin of error in EPICA core data.

According to this article, they've altered the way they measure it:

Parrenin’s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.


“Our method takes into account more data and shows that the age difference in Antarctic temperature and CO2 levels is less than we previously thought,” Parrenin says. “I think this could help to change the tone of discussions about climate change.”​

Its not conspiracy theroy, It's objective assessment of the faults. Its like Mann adding 5 year plots to his hockey stick graph when he was using 300 year plots prior to the last 150 years.. How many 5 year plots are in a 300 year plot? when averaged what is the mean single point of the plot?Your warming disappears into oblivion..

Our current warming is insignificant and could very well be within millions of years of 300 year plots to be very normal variation. No conspiracy needed.

Who said it was conspiracy?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wow arswipe that was pretty good

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

It only takes a few degrees of change to create massive changes. A 2 degree C shift could hasten the melting of the icesheets thus increasing sea-levels. It could begin melting the permafrost which in turn could potentially release huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane which goes back into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

Are you trying to claim there is no empirical evidence for the role of C02 in climate change?

It has been shown mute by empirical evidence. Only in models does the evil CO2 monster live and all models to date fail empirical review and forecasting, so they are useless. Does CO2 play a role? We simply do not have the evidence to say it does and to date no one can show the evidence that it does, which is repeatable and verifiable. The one thing we can be sure about is water vapor is not coupled to CO2 and their is no positive forcing as a negative forcing has been shown to dampen even the LOG rate of increase found in the lab, in our atmosphere.

 

[Billy_Bob]

.

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

For what point?

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist... It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

 

[Coyote]

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

 

[Coyote]

We seem to have a communication problem. Do I need to dumb down the question further? (not sure if that is possible).

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

It only takes a few degrees of change to create massive changes. A 2 degree C shift could hasten the melting of the icesheets thus increasing sea-levels. It could begin melting the permafrost which in turn could potentially release huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane which goes back into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

Are you trying to claim there is no empirical evidence for the role of C02 in climate change?

It has been shown mute by empirical evidence. Only in models does the evil CO2 monster live and all models to day fail empirical review and forecasting, so they are useless. Dose CO2 play a role? we simply do not have the evidence to say it does and to date no one can show the evidence that it does, which is repeatable and verifiable. The one thing we can be sure about is water vapor is not coupled to CO2 and their is no positive forcing as a negative forcing has been shown to dampen even the LOG rate of increase found in the lab.

Only in models? Not really.

For example, satellite's can be used to measure how much energy the earth is receiving from the sun and how much is radiating back out. Over several decades the amount of energy from the sun is unchanged but the amount radiating back into space from the earth has shown a gradual decrease. That's a measurable change that is telling us more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

So what is causing that? Greenhouse gases: Co2, methane, ozone, water vapor which trap some of the energy in the atmosphere, and re-emit it in all directions including back at the earth. This warms the planet. It's a proveable mechanism.

Has C02 increased? Ice core data shows that the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has increased by almost half since the industrial revolution.

Different gas' trap different wave lengths of energy which can be measured. Spectroscopic measurements have shown that most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere is being trapped by C02.

So you have empirical evidence that more energy is remaining trapped in the atmsophere via satelite imagery. We know that certain molecules trap that energy and that each traps a particular wavelength. Even if you ignore icecore data - spectroscopic measurements show that most of that energy is being trapped by C02 which indicates atmospheric C02 has been increasing.

 

[Coyote]

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah I notice you're a bit confused it's normal for the folks on the left to feel that way since they don't even know what they're arguing anymore! Ha ha Ha ha ha it is funny, funny as hell dude

Let's give it another try shall we?

What about the data that isn't computer models?

DO you mean this data?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate according to AR1 and succeeding papers.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

It only takes a few degrees of change to create massive changes. A 2 degree C shift could hasten the melting of the icesheets thus increasing sea-levels. It could begin melting the permafrost which in turn could potentially release huge amounts of greenhouse gases such as methane which goes back into the atmosphere creating a feedback loop.

Now do you want to discuss how the "forcing" which is now zero by empirical evidence and how the null hypothesis shows the theroy of CO2 induced has failed at producing the base LOG rate warming, found in a closed cylinder lab environment, where water vapor has removed all warming possibly caused by CO2?

Are you trying to claim there is no empirical evidence for the role of C02 in climate change?

It has been shown mute by empirical evidence. Only in models does the evil CO2 monster live and all models to day fail empirical review and forecasting, so they are useless. Dose CO2 play a role? we simply do not have the evidence to say it does and to date no one can show the evidence that it does, which is repeatable and verifiable. The one thing we can be sure about is water vapor is not coupled to CO2 and their is no positive forcing as a negative forcing has been shown to dampen even the LOG rate of increase found in the lab.

Only in models? Not really.

For example, satellite's can be used to measure how much energy the earth is receiving from the sun and how much is radiating back out. Over several decades the amount of energy from the sun is unchanged but the amount radiating back into space from the earth has shown a gradual decrease. That's a measurable change that is telling us more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

So what is causing that? Greenhouse gases: Co2, methane, ozone, water vapor which trap some of the energy in the atmosphere, and re-emit it in all directions including back at the earth. This warms the planet. It's a proveable mechanism.

Has C02 increased? Ice core data shows that the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has increased by almost half since the industrial revolution.

Different gas' trap different wave lengths of energy which can be measured. Spectroscopic measurements have shown that most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere is being trapped by C02.

So you have empirical evidence that more energy is remaining trapped in the atmsophere via satelite imagery. We know that certain molecules trap that energy and that each traps a particular wavelength. Even if you ignore icecore data - spectroscopic measurements show that most of that energy is being trapped by C02 which indicates atmospheric C02 has been increasing.

Tell me again how Trenbreth's missing heat has been missed? What you failed to understand about satellites, is above 75 degrees lat they can not discern the heat loss due to angle. The polar regions emit massive amounts of heat and the polar cell captures much mid latitudes heat in the atmosphere. Again, knowing your instruments is paramount.

I am well versed in bandpass and reflection of IR. The amount of heat your talking is within the MOE of the instrument packs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I told you it's fabricated what is the problem with that? you don't understand Fabricated?

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

 

[Coyote]

.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

For what point?

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist... It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's not essential to AGW theory. At least not in the way you think.

 

[bripat9643]

According to skook here, since we don't know everything about gravity, then we can say nothing about gravity, so we shouldn't have launched any spacecraft.

Non-morons, of course, would say that even though we don't know everything about gravity, the science of gravity is settled _enough_, therefore we can launch spacecraft.

Same with climate science. We don't know everything, but it's settled _enough_ that we can make some very definite conclusions. Non-morons understand the difference between "absolutely settled" and "settled enough". If someone doesn't, they're too stupid to be in this conversation.

Skook, alas, can't understand something that simple, being that decades of gleefully chugging the denier cult piss that he savors so much has left him brain-damaged. It's also given him a muscular disorder, most obvious in the limpness of his wrists that he so proudly advertises.

Oh, Dyson was a moron on the global warming issue. Scientists tend to get stupid and cranky when they get old, raving about how they don't understand those young whippernsappers.

The problem with your theory is that we know plenty about gravity. We don't know everything about gravity, but we know enough to predict the course of a satellite to within feet. When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

 

[Coyote]

So all that data like ice-core samples, receding glaciers, ocean acidification is fabricated? Wow. That's a hell of a job they've done. How'd they pull it off?

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

.

What's funny is all we asked for was an experiment and yet the left on here can't produce one that proves whatever it is they want to prove. I don't even think they know anymore!

Experiment for what?

Please show us how 120 ppm has affected the global temperature in the mid troposphere and why it has not caused any warming as your CAGW mongers have screamed, at the top of their lungs, that we are all going to fry.. I await the Math, Method and data to reproduce your experiment.

For what point?

Lets start with the mid tropospheric hot spot which doe not exist... It is essential to the AGW theroy and a coupled state to water vapor. Since it does not exist, neither does the coupled state.

It's not essential to AGW theory. At least not in the way you think.

The so called "Positive Feedback loop" is integral to the theroy. Showing that it is not coupled, in even the most remote way, is damning to the theroy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

 

[skookerasbil]

So turns out, Einsteins "Theory of Relativity", based upon the speed of light may have been wrong after all!!!!

When Science Is Wrong The Threat of Truth by Consensus PJ Media


Would Einstein, were he alive, try to shut out any new scientific possibilities? Based upon many, many statements he made during his life............no way!!!


Albert Einstein Quotes - 183 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes



But climate science is "settled"????

duh





Meanwhile, despite volumes of evidence in the scientific community that puts into question the validity of AGW, the AGW climate crusaders refuse to recognize any science other than their own science.

Fred Dyson, the most brilliant physicist on the planet in the 1950's and who took over for Einstein at Princeton after he died, said THIS >> “I think any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” Dyson said.

Dyson also said THIS >>>

But that approach lost out to the computer-modeling approach favored by climate scientists. And that approach was flawed from the beginning, Dyson said.

“I just think they don’t understand the climate,” he said of climatologists. “Their computer models are full of fudge factors.”

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO-2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

“The models are extremely oversimplified,” he said. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”



In other words, these people are so full of shit, its not even real.


Religion? Most definitely.

Science? Most definitely....................not.

The brilliancy of science is not that it is always "right" but that it can change when new evidence comes along. Scientific theories are theories that give the best explanation to fit the available facts at the time. For example Mendel and genetics. We know now that some of his ideas on how it worked were wrong - new technology constantly opens up new avenues for research that challanges our theories. Sometimes it overturns them, sometimes it just changes parts of them (like Mendel's theory of heredity).

Scientific consensus is a consensus is also based upon a large body of evidence supporting certain conclusions and in the case of anthropogenic climate change that body comes from a variety of disciplines. When something is "settled science" that doesn't mean it's unchanging. Evolution as a core principle, is "settled science" but a lot of the details are still changing and there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Likewise, the idea that human activities are influencing climate has become pretty much "settled science" though the degree to which that is occuring is still under debate.

By the way you mention the word evidence in this post it sure would be nice if you guys could ever just supply one piece of evidence but that's okay we've come to expect that you don't have any

Lots of evidence is out there but you want just one piece? Ok.

C02 measurements.

ghey






I laugh my balls of every time I post up this vid!!

 

[skookerasbil]

still stoopid

 

[Vigilante]

 

[skookerasbil]

Nope Vigilante.....it is settled. Gore says its so!!

The ultimate oxymoron...........scientific fascism.

 

[Vigilante]

Nope Vigilante.....it is settled. Gore says its so!!

The ultimate oxymoron...........scientific fascism.

Now, the very scary part of this is that today, it was mentioned that since Hillary Clinton is imploding FASTER than anyone thought, and Lezzy Warren, has even less experience than Capt. "O" the name ALGORE has been thrown back into the DemocRAT presidential ring..... Damn, what a field day I'll have with this mental giant!!!

 

[jc456]

Please show acidification.

A PH drop of 0.002 is not acidification in any ones book who works in a lab..

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!