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

[CrusaderFrank]

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

Insult me all you want, Miss Cleo. Without the Lab work, your "science" falls somewhere above phrenology but below homeopathy

"I see much global warming in your future"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

Also putting a natural byproduct of breathing in the same category as a shellfish toxin is stupid even for your low standards

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Flask #1

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Flask #2
Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 490 ppmv (0.049%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface


There it is!

Why don't you have one single experiment that shows how the above "acidifies the ocean"?

 

[skookerasbil]

It's actually a 35%. To claim 0.01% is like saying the dosage of a pill includes all the inactive ingredients.

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

 

[RollingThunder]

35%? Really? Do you know what PPM Stands for?

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

You can't count and now you can't read either.

People had confidence that the Earth was a flat plan, supported by turtles and lay at the center of the Universe; there's not much difference between that and AGW

 

[Old Rocks]

Just ignore all those lava flows folks. lol

Methane from ice caps bad. Methane from volcaneos good. lol

So you insist on presenting yourself as a stupid fuck. None other than the USGS states that the output of all the volcanoes on earth is less than 1% of the output of mankind.

 

[saveliberty]

Just ignore all those lava flows folks. lol

Methane from ice caps bad. Methane from volcaneos good. lol

So you insist on presenting yourself as a stupid fuck. None other than the USGS states that the output of all the volcanoes on earth is less than 1% of the output of mankind.

Math clearly is not your friend and truth is no closer. Its addition dumbass.

 

[RollingThunder]

If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

You can't count and now you can't read either.

People had confidence that the Earth was a flat plan, supported by turtles and lay at the center of the Universe; there's not much difference between that and AGW

But it only seems that way to you because, as I mentioned before, you're such a totally clueless ignorant retard with your head jammed so very far up your ass.

The Official Denier Cult Position on Global Warming
held by CrazyFrank and the other Retards

 

[saveliberty]

Absolutely no scientific proof of manmade global warming. Supposedly the ice caps are almost gone, and yet the prediction that the world coast would be under water are not happening. The outcomes predicted are not happening. The theory must be wrong.

 

[skookerasbil]

Do you know what "% change" means? Obviously not, you clueless retard.

CO2 levels haven't gone above 280ppm in hundreds of thousands of years and now mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 392ppm (and still rising rapidly) which is an almost 40% "change".

Because you're an ignorant brainwashed retard, you obsess over meaningless numbers. If I give you a 1 gram pill that is 99.9999% inert and only contains a slightly sub-lethal dose of a shellfish toxin (that has a lethal dose measured in micrograms) and a second pill with 40% more of that toxin, the difference may be extremely minuscule but it is still between something that will kill you and something that won't. The difference is a 40% increase in the active ingredient. In terms of the greenhouse effect, the only gases in the atmosphere that matter are the ones that absorb outgoing infrared radiation, like CO2 and water vapor. It is the "% change" in the 'active ingredients' that makes a difference, not the "% change" of the active ingredients relative to all of the inert stuff.

If it does ANY much less ALL what you claim it does why don't you have even one single repeatable lab experiment on point?

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

Your number is utterly meaningless because we already know the leading culprits in the AGW con conspired to keel skeptical papers from getting published.

Also, truth isn't determined by majority vote. One man with the correct logic and evidence is enough to invalidate a thousand bogus scientists sucking on the government tit.

 

[konradv]

Because you are a clueless brainwashed retard, you are completely wrong about this, just like you are about 'most everything else. You're too stupid to understand that your idiotic denial of reality doesn't actually affect reality. You prattle mindlessly about things beyond your very limited comprehension so I don't expect actual scientific evidence will overcome your delusions but for the benefit of any other people who aren't brainwashed retards who may be following this thread...

430+ Genuine Science Papers Supporting Confidence in the AGW theory and Relevant Environmental Concern

Your number is utterly meaningless because we already know the leading culprits in the AGW con conspired to keel skeptical papers from getting published.

Also, truth isn't determined by majority vote. One man with the correct logic and evidence is enough to invalidate a thousand bogus scientists sucking on the government tit.

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

 

[saveliberty]

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

Please cite the two sets of numbers you claim are 35% above historical averages.

 

[konradv]

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

Please cite the two sets of numbers you claim are 35% above historical averages.

Historical average: ~290 ppm. Present average: ~390 ppm.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

 

[saveliberty]

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

Please cite the two sets of numbers you claim are 35% above historical averages.

Historical average: ~290 ppm. Present average: ~390 ppm.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Thank you for the source. This is from Mauna Loa, HI for the period 1959 to the present. Hardly historical in a geologic sense. Also volcanic activity is going to influence those number quite a bit during your period cited. See, this is the type of unscientific cherry picking/manipulation that causes people like me to be a skeptic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

Please cite the two sets of numbers you claim are 35% above historical averages.

Historical average: ~290 ppm. Present average: ~390 ppm.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Flask #1

Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 290 ppmv (0.029%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Flask #2
Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[2]
ppmv: parts per million by volume (note: volume fraction is equal to mole fraction for ideal gas only, see volume (thermodynamics))
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

There it is!

Why don't you have one single experiment that shows how the above "acidifies the ocean"?

 

[bripat9643]

Correct, but logic has never been on the side of the skeptics! They ignore the well documented properties of CO2 and that its concentration is about 35% above historical averages. That's TWO STRIKES right there, one for the science and one for logic.

They ignore nothing. The jump from your premises to your conclusion can't be made except with some form of magic. CO2 may cause warming, but does it cause enough to worry about? No one has proven that claim.