Oceans have acidified more in the last 200 years than they did in the previous 21000

[westwall]

almost 16 weeks

....since your brain finally died completely? I could have sworn it was much longer than that.

At least he had one at one time. What's your excuse for your stupendous ignorance?

 

[RollingThunder]

almost 16 weeks

....since your brain finally died completely? I could have sworn it was much longer than that.

At least he had one at one time. What's your excuse for your stupendous ignorance?

I'm certainly not ignorant of the fact that you are a hopeless retard without a clue as to what is actually going on in the world with global warming/climate changes. You make that obvious to everyone every time you post more of your idiotic anti-science denier cult drivel.

 

[westwall]

....since your brain finally died completely? I could have sworn it was much longer than that.

At least he had one at one time. What's your excuse for your stupendous ignorance?

I'm certainly not ignorant of the fact that you are a hopeless retard without a clue as to what is actually going on in the world with global warming/climate changes. You make that obvious to everyone every time you post more of your idiotic anti-science denier cult drivel.

Oooooh ow, oi! That hurt.....well not really. You are funny though, I've got to give you that. Allways good for a laugh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Official Icon of the AGW Cult

 

[RollingThunder]

The Official Icon of the AGW Cult

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Official Icon of the AGW Cult

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

That's where you guys have been looking for the one repeatable laboratory that show how a 01% change in the atmospheric composition causes "manmade Global Warming"

 

[westwall]

The Official Icon of the AGW Cult

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

That's where you guys have been looking for the one repeatable laboratory that show how a 01% change in the atmospheric composition causes "manmade Global Warming"

Indeed, I believe thay call that "position" rectal defilade!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

That's where you guys have been looking for the one repeatable laboratory that show how a 01% change in the atmospheric composition causes "manmade Global Warming"

Indeed, I believe thay call that "position" rectal defilade!

I have peer reviewed this post and find it awesome

 

[RollingThunder]

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

Indeed, I believe thay call that "position" rectal defilade!

I have to admit, walleyedretard, you have got to be a world-class expert on having your head up your ass, so it is not too surprising that you would know the name for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

Indeed, I believe thay call that "position" rectal defilade!

I have to admit, walleyedretard, you have got to be a world-class expert on having your head up your ass, so it is not too surprising that you would know the name for it.

And yet the number of repeatable, scientific experiments demonstrating how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "climate change" or "Global warming" is still zero, Miss Cleo

 

[konradv]

And yet the number of repeatable, scientific experiments demonstrating how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "climate change" or "Global warming" is still zero, Miss Cleo

More like a 35% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Your math is self-serving by including parts of the atmosphere that have no involvement in the process. No effect in the past, no effect in the present. It's a wash and, therefore, can be subtracted out. At least that's the way real science is done. If I have a 99g:1g mixture of sand and gold dust and subsequently find a 1g nugget, I've doubled my gold, NOT increased it by 1%!

 

[westwall]

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

Indeed, I believe thay call that "position" rectal defilade!

I have to admit, walleyedretard, you have got to be a world-class expert on having your head up your ass, so it is not too surprising that you would know the name for it.

Well, you know, when one has to deal with bufoons such as yourself for as long as I have you either become an expert in your type of behavior or you get inoculated and quarantine yourself from doofi such as you. I became an expert so that I can tiptoe through your little turd minefields.

 

[westwall]

And yet the number of repeatable, scientific experiments demonstrating how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "climate change" or "Global warming" is still zero, Miss Cleo

More like a 35% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Your math is self-serving by including parts of the atmosphere that have no involvement in the process. No effect in the past, no effect in the present. It's a wash and, therefore, can be subtracted out. At least that's the way real science is done. If I have a 99g:1g mixture of sand and gold dust and subsequently find a 1g nugget, I've doubled my gold, NOT increased it by 1%!

Why am I not surprised that even the most BASIC mathematical principles are beyond you.

 

[RollingThunder]

I want to thank all of you denier cult retards for reposting this six times already. Hilarious!!!

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

 

[westwall]

I want to thank all of you denier cult retards for reposting this six times already. Hilarious!!!

The Official Position of the AGW Denier Cult

You're welcome. We like people seeing where your heads are. It makes it easier to explain to them how you guys get it so wrong day after day after day.

 

[Old Rocks]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

You're so pathetic.

Is that where you guys finally present the lab experiment that show how a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere cause heat, snow and giant squirrels?

 

[westwall]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

I submitted a paper just a few days ago to that conference. I doubt I'll get an invite. You see dear boy, when the powers that be don't want other opinions to be brodcast they deny you access. That's your "consensus". Squelch dissent and opposing opinions....just like the Church of old.

 

[RollingThunder]

Here's an interesting study that just came out that looks at the effects of ocean acidification worldwide.

Study Explores Impact of Ocean Acidification
University of California at Santa Barbara
By Alex Colletta
February 3, 2012
(excerpts)

Researchers in the Marine Science Dept. released the results of the largest study on ocean acidification ever conducted, revealing that global warming leads to destructive increases in ocean acidity levels. Ecology, evolution and marine biology professor Gretchen Hofmann and 18 other researchers in the department compiled the data, released this week, using 15 underwater sensors developed at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography to observe a wide variety of ocean locations including warm tropical waters and the Antarctic. The acidification process is sparked when carbon emissions reach saltwater and form carbonic acid, lowering overall pH levels and making it more difficult for invertebrates to form shells or exoskeletons.

Although acidification can benefit some species, the phenomenon has dire effects on vital coral reefs that protect coastal lands from storms and floods, according to Brzezinski. Third-year biology major Vanessa Lang said since many underwater species are harmed by low pH levels, the general welfare of fundamental ecosystems is particularly threatened. “A lot of people aren’t aware of [ocean acidification], but it affects a lot of invertebrates and has a big impact on food chains and coral reefs,” Lang said. “A lot of fish live on the reef for shelter — it’s a huge center for biodiversity and it’s important to protect things like that.”

 

[Old Rocks]

And we can expect your presentation at the annual AGU conferance this year? Or perhaps you are going to publish in the Royal Societies Philosophical Transactions? When can we expect a scholarly refutation of AGW from you, Walleyes?

I submitted a paper just a few days ago to that conference. I doubt I'll get an invite. You see dear boy, when the powers that be don't want other opinions to be brodcast they deny you access. That's your "consensus". Squelch dissent and opposing opinions....just like the Church of old.

LOL. Any old excuse for work that fails peer review will do. Others that have contested the current consensus have been published, and refuted.

The people whose presentations I have watched have all been out doing active research. When they speak of the glaciers receding, they have measured, personally, the recession on several continents. When they speak of the affects of the warming on the permafrost, they have measured these affects in North America and in Siberia.

So, what new research did you present in your paper? And was it from active research?