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

[westwall]

Genetic damage is the most probable explanation for your extreme retardation, frankie-boy, but we can't rule out careless parenting. It's obvious you got this way somehow. If you're old enough, I guess advanced senility might be the reason you're an idiot but that's usually kind of uneven and you seem to be continually moronic so I still suspect either a genetic defect or repeated blows to your unformed brain.

BTW, your idiotic notion that science only functions in laboratory settings and not in the real outside world is just tooooo frigging hilarious for words....ocean acidification is an observed phenomenon, not theoretical, dumbass....although it is supported by numerous experiments and the paleoclimate data, as well as the laws of physics....

If you can't show it in a lab where real scientists can verify your results, you're in the realm of astrology, phrenology, palmistry -- its just not science, ****-o.

May as well add astronomy, cosmology, and much of geology to that list. Can't remember the last time someone built a star or a universe in a lab, or plate tectonics.

In fact - by your logic - all of science is bunk.
Since we can't fit the universe in a laboratory, we can't scientifically study the universe. If we can't scientifically study the universe, then that leaves nothing for us to scientifically study, as every known physical thing is in the universe.

I suggest you look at the history of plate tectonics then. J. Tuzo Wilson explained how the system works and the then the transform faults he described were found.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you can't show it in a lab where real scientists can verify your results, you're in the realm of astrology, phrenology, palmistry -- its just not science, ****-o.

May as well add astronomy, cosmology, and much of geology to that list. Can't remember the last time someone built a star or a universe in a lab, or plate tectonics.

In fact - by your logic - all of science is bunk.
Since we can't fit the universe in a laboratory, we can't scientifically study the universe. If we can't scientifically study the universe, then that leaves nothing for us to scientifically study, as every known physical thing is in the universe.

I suggest you look at the history of plate tectonics then. J. Tuzo Wilson explained how the system works and the then the transform faults he described were found.

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

 

[konradv]

How is it was can replicate condition a nanosecond after the big bang, but filling a bottle with an extra 100ppm of CO2 is beyond your capabilities?

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How is it was can replicate condition a nanosecond after the big bang, but filling a bottle with an extra 100ppm of CO2 is beyond your capabilities?

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

 

[konradv]

How is it was can replicate condition a nanosecond after the big bang, but filling a bottle with an extra 100ppm of CO2 is beyond your capabilities?

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

LOL!!! Can't deal with the smackdown, so you have to throw in some irrlevancies in hopes that people don't notice your shame. PATHETIC!!!

 

[westwall]

May as well add astronomy, cosmology, and much of geology to that list. Can't remember the last time someone built a star or a universe in a lab, or plate tectonics.

In fact - by your logic - all of science is bunk.
Since we can't fit the universe in a laboratory, we can't scientifically study the universe. If we can't scientifically study the universe, then that leaves nothing for us to scientifically study, as every known physical thing is in the universe.

I suggest you look at the history of plate tectonics then. J. Tuzo Wilson explained how the system works and the then the transform faults he described were found.

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

Wilson drew the diagrams of how the transform faults would function, then he described exactly what they would look like and how they could be found. You have to remember this is long before computer models, so everything was done with pen and ink.

It would be fairly easy (though expensive) to build a accurate model of the atmosphere in a box and test the CO2 hypothesis within. Climatologists have never done so. Instead they rely on their computer models that show a warming no matter what numbers you punch into the program. To a thinking scientist that would be a problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

I suggest you look at the history of plate tectonics then. J. Tuzo Wilson explained how the system works and the then the transform faults he described were found.

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

Wilson drew the diagrams of how the transform faults would function, then he described exactly what they would look like and how they could be found. You have to remember this is long before computer models, so everything was done with pen and ink.

It would be fairly easy (though expensive) to build a accurate model of the atmosphere in a box and test the CO2 hypothesis within. Climatologists have never done so. Instead they rely on their computer models that show a warming no matter what numbers you punch into the program. To a thinking scientist that would be a problem.

Good God, Tuzo drew diagrams, (models) of what transform faults would look like. And the climate scientists made models of what warming from GHGs would do to the climate.

The geologists went out, no, actually, they had already mapped ample transform faults, just did not connect then to the rift zones.

And we have seen the increase in heat and storms as predicted by the climatologists. The fact that you deny it makes not the slightest bit of differance. We see in all aspects of science now.

AGW Observer

 

[Old Rocks]

How is it was can replicate condition a nanosecond after the big bang, but filling a bottle with an extra 100ppm of CO2 is beyond your capabilities?

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

Wider and wilder swings, with an overall increase in temperature. Fits that exactly.

 

[westwall]

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

Wilson drew the diagrams of how the transform faults would function, then he described exactly what they would look like and how they could be found. You have to remember this is long before computer models, so everything was done with pen and ink.

It would be fairly easy (though expensive) to build a accurate model of the atmosphere in a box and test the CO2 hypothesis within. Climatologists have never done so. Instead they rely on their computer models that show a warming no matter what numbers you punch into the program. To a thinking scientist that would be a problem.

Good God, Tuzo drew diagrams, (models) of what transform faults would look like. And the climate scientists made models of what warming from GHGs would do to the climate.

The geologists went out, no, actually, they had already mapped ample transform faults, just did not connect then to the rift zones.

And we have seen the increase in heat and storms as predicted by the climatologists. The fact that you deny it makes not the slightest bit of differance. We see in all aspects of science now.

AGW Observer

We do? Where oh where is the increase in heat and storms? It's hidden in the oceans the last time I heard. Well that's what old Kevin claims. I wonder how that works? You know heat 'hiding" in really cold water. Interesting concept, I'm sure that that little though of his violates a whole bunch thermodynamics, but hey, that's never bothered a climatologist. Math doesn't seem top be their strongpoint.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

LOL!!! Can't deal with the smackdown, so you have to throw in some irrlevancies in hopes that people don't notice your shame. PATHETIC!!!

How is it "Irrelevant" to remind you of all the things you claim are caused by an increase in the atmospheric trace elemental CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

Wider and wilder swings, with an overall increase in temperature. Fits that exactly.

Wider swings? I thought it was "warming"?

Fits what exactly, this unstated theory that you can never demonstrate in a lab?

 

[bripat9643]

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

Scientists can measure the movement of the continental plates, nimrod.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just show me where I can find an experiment where scientists took two tectonic plates and fit them into a lab.

Scientists can measure the movement of the continental plates, nimrod.

We have measured the increase in heat, dumb ****.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHZzACcYJRo]Land Temperature Anomaly Video - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wider swing in "Ocean acidification" too? Yeah? Really?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So there are "Wider swing" in climate, but "ocean acidification" seem to move only in one direction...how does that happen exactly?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wilson drew the diagrams of how the transform faults would function, then he described exactly what they would look like and how they could be found. You have to remember this is long before computer models, so everything was done with pen and ink.

It would be fairly easy (though expensive) to build a accurate model of the atmosphere in a box and test the CO2 hypothesis within. Climatologists have never done so. Instead they rely on their computer models that show a warming no matter what numbers you punch into the program. To a thinking scientist that would be a problem.

Good God, Tuzo drew diagrams, (models) of what transform faults would look like. And the climate scientists made models of what warming from GHGs would do to the climate.

The geologists went out, no, actually, they had already mapped ample transform faults, just did not connect then to the rift zones.

And we have seen the increase in heat and storms as predicted by the climatologists. The fact that you deny it makes not the slightest bit of differance. We see in all aspects of science now.

AGW Observer

We do? Where oh where is the increase in heat and storms? It's hidden in the oceans the last time I heard. Well that's what old Kevin claims. I wonder how that works? You know heat 'hiding" in really cold water. Interesting concept, I'm sure that that little though of his violates a whole bunch thermodynamics, but hey, that's never bothered a climatologist. Math doesn't seem top be their strongpoint.

Ample links here to the present effects of climate change.

Responding to the climate sceptics | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

Swiss Re argues that the climate is warming at a rate which cannot be explained with natural factors alone.
.We have for sometime been vocal that global warming is happening and is mainly caused by man-made activity. So how should we consider the arguments of the climate sceptics?
Although there is plenty of evidence for man-made climate change, there is room for scientific discussions about climate issues because we still do not have sufficient knowledge about all climate processes to be 100% certain about the future development of global warming. While some sceptics can be compared to “flat earthers”, people holding onto outdated and disproved theories, it can be argued that others are healthy challengers to the current state of knowledge in climate change science, even if their views serve specific political and commercial ends as well.
In a field of such complexity, however, the devil is in the detail. The sceptics make a series of claims, often on a general level, which have to be put under scrutiny by the scientific community. Urs Neu at ProClim, in collaboration with our own Natural Catastrophe and Sustainability and Emerging Risk colleagues, Mark Wüest and Martin Weymann, has reviewed scientific evidence on some of the key sceptic arguments in detail – here are the highlights:
According to present knowledge of physical processes in the climate system there is no known factor other than rising greenhouse gas concentrations which quantitatively explains the observed warming of recent decades.
All known natural factors influencing climate either act on longer time-scales (eg orbital parameters which cause ice age cycles on tens of thousands of years) or have not changed significantly over the last few decades (solar irradiance, cosmic ray flux, volcanic activity). There is no known natural factor whose recent evolution could explain the recent warming.
Current climate models are able to reproduce the climate of the past, but can only simulate the recent warming if the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is taken into account. Natural factors alone would lead to a slight global cooling over the last decades.
In short then, the climate is warming at a rate and with specific effects which cannot be explained by purely natural means. Add the effects of man-made emissions based on solid physical knowledge and the explanation is powerful and convincing for the majority of climate scientists as represented by the IPCC.

Climate change | Swiss Re - Leading Global Reinsurer

As in previous years, the Swiss country delegation was particularly interested in tapping into Swiss Re’s risk management expertise and our work on the economics of climate adaptation. The empirical facts that we brought to the negotiating table strengthened Switzerland’s position and contributed key elements to the conference work programme on loss and damage. It was adopted by the negotiating parties in Durban to identify the most effective ways to assess and manage climate-related risks. More specifically, it will explore "the links and synergies between risk reduction and other instruments such as risk transfer".

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Frank..........check out this vid..........do you feel like you are that plane in this vid after taking a gander into this forum each day.......and the people on the ground are the k00ks in here??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gk49n5djw]Mother of all Bombs (moab) Test Drop - YouTube[/ame]


Now THATS some ******* science right there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Frank..........check out this vid..........do you feel like you are that plane in this vid after taking a gander into this forum each day.......and the people on the ground are the k00ks in here??

Mother of all Bombs (moab) Test Drop - YouTube


Now THATS some ******* science right there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats what happens to the theory of AGW whenever its tested in a lab KaBOOM!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Don't be disingenuous, Frank. You know this has been told to you repeatedly. Put CO2 in a spectrophotometer and it absorbs IR. Put in 100 ppm more and it will absorb more IR. QED.

Tell your friends. True story!!!

And that's what caused the massive snowstorm in NYC before Halloween? Or Hurricane Katrina?

Is that your final answer?

Wider and wilder swings, with an overall increase in temperature. Fits that exactly.

 

[RollingThunder]

So there are "Wider swing" in climate, but "ocean acidification" seem to move only in one direction...how does that happen exactly?

I see you're clueless and confused, as usual, frankie-boy. I'm afraid that, even if it were explained to you in detail, you are certainly far too retarded to comprehend that climate changes and ocean acidification are two entirely different physical phenomena linked only by the fact that increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing both of them.