Jump to content

HEY! Ever wonder why surface temps aren't rocketing? Hmmmm?


Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/10/unprecedented-trade-winds-global-warming-

oceansGW_Components_500.jpg

 

WE SHOULD BE RE-GLACIATING, and we will not re-glaciate, until human activity decreases, is my bet.

 

The Holocene interglacial should be ending, NOW. Scientists have already analyzed Milankovitch cycle media, to claim re-glaciation, during the course of the Quaternary Ice Age (our current, ongoing, actual ice age) should be happening wicked already, similar, to the studied re-glaciation slide, of 400,000 years ago.

 

But NOOOOOOO. Humans are trashing AND emitting, and humans have devolved, so most of them won't cop, to any of their already smeared crap OR their impending, explosive diarrhea.

 

Humans are too corrupt and stupid, both, to avoid catastrophe, related to warming, climate change, and Mass Extinction Event 6, ongoing.

 

All kinds of devolved idiots are arguing and posting and farting and crapping their diapers, over how surface temps aren't going up, much.

 

They should NOT go up, too fast, since MOST CLIMATE AFFECTED MASS IS IN THE OCEANS, duh!

 

Surface temps are NOT due, to go up, while:

 

1. Oceanic masses warm up, and

 

2. Formerly frozen methane evaporates and perennial ice melts, so both cool surface temps, BUT THEY ARE NASTY GREENHOUSE GASSES, WHEN THEY EVAPORATE!!!!!

 

Hey, it could be nice and cool, but that's just the weather, derpy science detractors and science observers.

 

THE EARTH'S HEAT SINKS ARE BUSY, now. Surface temps will go UP, but not until storms get nastier and more numerous.

 

When things get nasty, magma chambers will be relieved, of glacial pressure, and volcanoes, like KATLA will erupt.

 

Other magma chambers are undersea, so when SLR gets enough heavy tides, rolling, along comes ANAK and others, like it.

 

As the plates grind, YELLOWSTONE will ripen. The land there is going UP, right now.

 

More seismic and volcanic events are happening, eh?

 

We passed the clathrate gunshot, so frozen methane melted, and now, it's a nasty GHG, with more water and CO2, in the atmosphere.

 

We will see volcanic winters, followed by sudden warming, where more CO2, NO2, and SO2 are in the air, with more ACID, than ever, in the water and elsewhere. Hey, volcanoes do that.

 

Any foliage will eat death, and when the GHG situation makes temps shoot, the ensuing floods will erode land, tragically.

 

The Quaternary Ice Age will claim an end, to the Anthrocene Epoch, when humans are GONE, or we number but a fraction, of today's 7.1 billion, idiot-ruled and retard-affected souls.

 

Damn, Republitards are stupid. I guess the Derpocrats tried, but they couldn't keep up with all the R-tard stunts, with fire and farts, until explosive diarrhea is supposed to make us all laugh, or whatever.

 

Well, MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6 is getting hella busy. I wonder if the R-tards or Derpocrats will show, on the endangered list, first?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6 is getting hella busy.

Just so everyone knows, in the past bobgnote went on and on and on about the 5 previous mass extinction events.

 

And I asked him, have you bothered to look at the absolute level of C02 in the atmosphere at the time of those events?

 

And then I posted this:

 

Extinction.jpg

 

which shows that all the major extinctions (including 5 other minor ones) occurred when the atmospheric CO2 level was above a thousand parts per million (usually several thousand ppm). Needless to say, that parameter today is WAY under a thousand. In fact, it's around 400 ppm … which isn't all that different from the 200 to 300 ppm that it's varied around over the last 400,000 years. Here:

 

graph4.gif

 

I noted to him that even if the CO2 continued rising at a MUCH higher rate than now, it wouldn't exceed 1000 ppm FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.

 

Here:

 

ScenarioCO2.jpg

 

So, like I told him then, it's not like this is so urgent a problem that we have to do something draconian NOW (destroying our economy with untold harmful effects in the process) when we still know so little as to what's really going on. And if he thinks we know everything, then go respond to my posts in the other threads on AGW. But he doesn't. He only starts a thread like this to post more of his mass extinction meme. But then, that is what Truthers do.

 

REPEAT THE MEME.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come libs have a history of ignoring facts? It's the same with gun control. The facts prove that the gun control debate is not in their favor, yet they go with it anyway. Same with global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been shown global warming scientists have falsified or held back facts concerning man made global warming. I have posted evidence of this before. Don't ask me for sources. It is easily found. Man made global warming is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the article that bob linked:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/seven-years-ago-we-were-told-the-opposite-of-what-the-new-matthew-england-paper-says-slower-not-faster-trade-winds-caused-the-pause/

While Matthew England claims in a new paper that fast trade winds caused cooling:

The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.

Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.


Another paper from 2006 says the exact opposite. This oldie but goodie, that preceded WUWT by a few months, escaped my attention until reader “Alec aka Daffy Duck” pointed me to a news article, and from that I found this original press release which says:

The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change. The findings appear in the May 4 issue of Nature.


So, who to believe? Representatives of The University of the Ship of Fools New South Wales, who seems capable of saying anything to the press depending on the month or year or NCAR/UCAR? Do any of these folks really know with any certainty what is really going on when their excuses for ‘the pause’ don’t even agree?


And here's more on Matthew England's past *prediction* and explanation DUDS:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/a-review-of-professor-matthew-englands-say-anything-past-failed-claims/

As it concludes …

How can we trust him? And will he say sorry?


:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a punk. Use quote, if you refer to "the past," assclown.

 

Just so everyone knows, in the past bobgnote went on and on and on about the 5 previous mass extinction events.

And I asked him, have you bothered to look at the absolute level of C02 in the atmosphere at the time of those events?

And then I posted this:

Extinction.jpg

which shows that all the major extinctions (including 5 other minor ones) occurred when the atmospheric CO2 level was above a thousand parts per million (usually several thousand ppm). Needless to say, that parameter today is WAY under a thousand. In fact, it's around 400 ppm … which isn't all that different from the 200 to 300 ppm that it's varied around over the last 400,000 years. Here:

graph4.gif

I noted to him that even if the CO2 continued rising at a MUCH higher rate than now, it wouldn't exceed 1000 ppm FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.

Here:

ScenarioCO2.jpg

So, like I told him then, it's not like this is so urgent a problem that we have to do something draconian NOW (destroying our economy with untold harmful effects in the process) when we still know so little as to what's really going on. And if he thinks we know everything, then go respond to my posts in the other threads on AGW. But he doesn't. He only starts a thread like this to post more of his mass extinction meme. But then, that is what Truthers do.

 

REPEAT THE MEME.

 

OK, queerboy. You didn't quote me. You sucked, whenever, and you suck, now.

 

Re this:

 

Your spam is unlinked and uncalibrated, since you went out and got an image, without knowing WTF to put up.

 

FYI: Whenever atmospheric CO2 increases, rapidly, a mass extinction event occurs, since organisms cannot react, queer. Top levels are important, sort of.

 

FYFI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Veron

 

Re Here:

 

Your graph shows CO2, over the last 400K years. Whoop. Get a real graph:

 

400000yearslarge.gif

 

See that red line, ON THE RIGHT, poof? That shouldn't be hard, for a right-wing-nut-job to look at!

 

That is CO2, going up, faster, than ever, in geologic history, similar to the less graphic blue line, on YOUR graph.

 

While this ripens, ALL GHGs are going up, faster, than ever before, while the oceans heat up and die, while turning killer.

 

As perennial ice and frozen methane melt and evaporate, more GHGs enter the climate, and the oceans warm and acidify, even though surface temps are relatively cool.

 

So whenever you noted, including now, you were IRRELEVANT, and your gay garbage went in your happy butt, and out came explosive diarrhea, or GARBAGE OUT. So STFU, finally, whenever.

 

Repeat the truth: Es verdad, dude. You're too queer, for anyone, but your Log Cabin buddies, so STFU.


BeAQueen:

 

 

Damn, you sure are stupid and happy, both.

 

You went over, to Heartland's Watt-site, and you got some straw dog, named Matthew. Why don't you suck Al Gore's balls and spam up some Goracle, just to prove what an idiotic conservaderp, into straw rambles you are?

 

Blah-blah, straw dog, woof-woof, ramble-ramble. Tell you what. Your Heartland horseshit won't have Koch Bro or Exxon money, anymore, so STFU, punk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax

Guest essay by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics

National Academies of Science defines a scientific theory as

“a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Dr Richard Feynman, Cornell Physicist in a lecture explained how theorys that failed the test of data or experiment are falsified (“wrong”) and must be discarded.

Global Warming Theory Has Failed

(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only

(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.

(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.

(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.

(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios

(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.

(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.

(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.

(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10

(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s

(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.

(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen

(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.

(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.

(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming. The upward trends since 1979 continues.

(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.

(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.

(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing. Fires have declined.

(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.

(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years

(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.

(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998

(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” – is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.

(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.

Given the failures of global warming science, just a few mentioned here, the most disreputable alarmists like Oreskes, Cook and Trenberth and the demagogue party have tried to convince the uniformed by using the consensus argument. See the latest failed attempt here. It was also described on Forbes here.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003
at the California Institute of Technology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fag two, post 4: Blah-blah, straw liberal, ramble on, gun control, same-same, global warming. Put widdle right-wing-nut-job head back up butt, or it'll get cold, tard.

 

FYI: I claim "Non-liberal," under my avatar, fag. That means ain't no libs posted here, yet, dumbshit.

 

Fag three, post 5: Bow-wow, scientists posted errors, so global warming is a lie.

 

You wouldn't know science, unless some Chinese kink invented a nuclear powered buttplug, for you and your Log Cabin Pub kinks to sit on.

 

Link to whatever you posted, or to "scientists," or quote, or STFU, you ambiguous queen of a shit-pile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fag three, post 8: Oh, wow, it's from wattsupwiththat.com, and it's total EXCREMENT, isn't it.

 

Who could ignore what is up, better than Heartland's tard, Watts and spamming assclowns?

 

The OP describes how warming is happening, IN THE OCEANS, which shouldn't be too hard, to understand, unless the mass of your ass is so compelling, you can't get off it or ignore it, to notice how most climate-affected mass on Earth is IN THE OCEANS.

 

Damn, you right-wing-nut-jobs are stupid. But then, you go over to the Watts site, just to make really, really sure you stay retarded AND ignorant, in detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, queerboy.

 

Told folks that you'd go that route, bob.

 

You Truthers are nothing if not consistent.

 

Your spam is unlinked and uncalibrated

 

What's the problem, bob?

 

You can't figure out the units of the horizontal axis in those charts?

 

And here we were led to believe you're smart.

 

As for links, don't you know how to find the source of a chart on this forum?

 

Again, you led us to believe you are a smart guy.

 

 

FYI: Whenever atmospheric CO2 increases, rapidly, a mass extinction event occurs

 

"Whenever"? Well then, shouldn't there have been a mass extinction in every one of the instances of rising CO2 in the following figure?

 

co2_800k.png

 

For example, was there a mass extinction event 110 thousand years ago?

 

And that chart show CO2 increasing rapidly every 100000 years or so?

 

Can you prove those dates correlate with mass extinctions.

 

Or is the level of CO2 more than just "sort of" important?

 

Hmmmmmm?

 

Ah yes, John Veron.

 

We discussed him, remember?

 

Shall I refresh your memory about that conversation, Truther?

 

 

That is CO2, going up, faster, than ever, in geologic history, similar to the less graphic blue line, on YOUR graph.

 

LOL! So? What level will the mass extinction occur? Obviously it didn't happen at 300 ppm, even though the rapidity that it rose to that level seems pretty fast according to even your bob-blessed chart. Why are you concerned at 400 ppm?

 

 

BeAQueen:

 

I told folks we'd now be entertained in this manner.

 

 

You went over, to Heartland's Watt-site, and you got some straw dog, named Matthew.

 

LOL! You're so stupid that you don't even know that you linked an article about Matthew.

 

 

Blah-blah, straw dog, woof-woof, ramble-ramble. Tell you what. Your Heartland horse[excrement] won't have Koch Bro or Exxon money, anymore, so STFU, punk.

Told you this Truther would react this way, folks.

 

Because if one thing is true, Truthers are consistent. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, folks, would you like to see excerpts from a past post by bobgnote and my response to it?

 

1. I didn't start calling you a f*gg8t or a f@g or a f@ggot or a queer, or any of those other terms, until you got REALLY QUEER, in post 30, where you ignored my previous posts and references, entirely, to start up with your queer name-calling, f@ggot. If I didn't get to 100 hits, f@g, I'll get there, @ss.

… snip …

Of course, since you are a f@g, who shoves circular rants, with name-calling, you get called a f@g, you made "gay," into an issue, but you are still a f@ggot, who started up a lot of circular rants, with name-calling, but before you did this, you didn't get called a f@g, queerboy.

6. . . . which is why I label people like YOU "f@ggots," you smiley-posting queer.

7. . . . whcih is why I continue to call you a F@GGOT, and I refer to you, as BeAPunkhole. Hey, dip-sh*t!


LOL!

There you go, lying and obsessing about homosexuality again. :rolleyes:

There is something seriously wrong with you, bob.

Seek help.


Obviously, bob didn't. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He thought he kick your ass earlier.

Right, one-liner.

 

Maybe you'll be able to actually help him do it this time.

 

WHEN PIGS FLY.

 

Here, dln, you can start here.

 

Regarding bob's link to Veron, let's go ahead and mention some of what I previously pointed out about Veron and his dire claims ...

 

First, in 2009, Veron made the assertion in his paper that the Great Barrier reef has only 20 years left before global warming destroys it. In fact, he said that CO2 levels have risen so much that it is now impossible to save it. "There is no way out, no loopholes. The Great Barrier Reef will be over within 20 years or so." But yet, here are Veron's colleagues at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, in 2011, saying that the GB reef is doing pretty good:

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017516

 

While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980's suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995.

And like I asked you before, haven't CO2 levels risen since 1995, bob? So shouldn't the oceans be more acidic than they were? Shouldn't the corals have struggled even more to survive? Or perhaps we don't really understand the science and causes/effects yet? Hmmmmmm? :D

 

I also pointed out to bob tht the study by Veron is full of unfounded claims. To prove it, I even pointed him to material hosted at skepticalscience.com (an AGWalarmist website) to that effect. Here …

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropical_thermostat.html

 

In another example, in a paper on mass extinctions, Veron, 2008 mentioned that:

 

"...the surface temperature of the largest oceans would have been limited by the Thermal Cap of ~31C, widely believed to be the highest temperature large oceans can reach.’"

… snip …

 

But is this actually "widely believed" as Veron, 2008 state? It turns out the answer is no.

 

So apparently not even the folks at SkepticalScience wholeheartedly believe in Veron's work.

 

Care to comment on that, bob? one-liner?

 

And I also pointed out to bob the following:

 

This chart (from Veron's study):

 

Mass_Extinctions.gif

 

shows when he claims coral reefs disappeared in the 5 mass extinctions (the little black powerplants). It also shows when there was prolific growth of coral (the brick pattern shapes). Now, overlay that chart with this one which shows various estimates for CO2 levels during that period of time.

 

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

 

You can clearly see that the rate of change in CO2 levels does NOT correlate with the mass extinction events. For example, the extinction about 65 million years ago occurred when CO2 levels were relatively stable. The same is true for the extinction event 205 million years ago. But you just claimed that "whenever atmospheric CO2 increases, rapidly, a mass extinction event occurs". Can either of you Truthers explain this discrepancy?

 

Furthermore, if it is the RATE of CO2 change that coral reefs (and life) can't adapt to, then why are there vast periods of time when CO2 level was changing just as rapidly as it did during the extinction events (at 354 million and 434 million years ago, for example) but yet coral reefs were seeing prolific growth? I pointed out to you such a period from 410 million years ago to 354 million years. During that time, the CO2 level was rapidly climbing for tens of million of years and then rapidly fell for tens of millions of years. It changed at rates just as fast as it did during the extinction event periods. Yet, Veron said that coral reef growth was "prolific" during that time. Explain that, if you can, bob? :P

 

Well, one-liner? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I notice.

 

all these people sitting around in their heated or cooled house using their computers eating food farting and all the while acting like they aren't contributing to greenhouse gasses.

 

why don't you go live in the woods naked starving and sick the way nature intended instead of gassing the place up with all your ghg and bs.

Also if things have already gone to far then we need to be figuring out how to survive rather than how to reverse it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your an idiot .

rocketing? 1- 2 degrees over years, ocean level rising 9 feet over 20 years . but the ocean warming is killing of sea life sure but the storms are getting bigger stronger and more often .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your an idiot .

rocketing? 1- 2 degrees over years, ocean level rising 9 feet over 20 years . but the ocean warming is killing of sea life sure but the storms are getting bigger stronger and more often .

 

True, that.

 

Surface temps are only up, about a degree Fahrenheit, since the start of widespread instrument measure. So what?

 

Mass Extinction Event 6 will make jellyfish the top oceanic predator, in a blink, while increasing eruptions AND storms will make humans endangered.

 

Did anyone figure out why BeAPunk posts Log Cabin-rambles and sneaky smilies, or do we all have to TURN ON THE GODDAM GAY-DAR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, one-liner.

 

Maybe you'll be able to actually help him do it this time.

 

WHEN PIGS FLY.

 

Here, dln, you can start here.

 

Regarding bob's link to Veron, let's go ahead and mention some of what I previously pointed out about Veron and his dire claims ...

 

First, in 2009, Veron made the assertion in his paper that the Great Barrier reef has only 20 years left before global warming destroys it. In fact, he said that CO2 levels have risen so much that it is now impossible to save it. "There is no way out, no loopholes. The Great Barrier Reef will be over within 20 years or so." But yet, here are Veron's colleagues at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, in 2011, saying that the GB reef is doing pretty good:

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017516

 

And like I asked you before, haven't CO2 levels risen since 1995, bob? So shouldn't the oceans be more acidic than they were? Shouldn't the corals have struggled even more to survive? Or perhaps we don't really understand the science and causes/effects yet? Hmmmmmm? :D

 

I also pointed out to bob tht the study by Veron is full of unfounded claims. To prove it, I even pointed him to material hosted at skepticalscience.com (an AGWalarmist website) to that effect. Here …

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropical_thermostat.html

 

So apparently not even the folks at SkepticalScience wholeheartedly believe in Veron's work.

 

Care to comment on that, bob? one-liner?

 

And I also pointed out to bob the following:

 

This chart (from Veron's study):

 

Mass_Extinctions.gif

 

shows when he claims coral reefs disappeared in the 5 mass extinctions (the little black powerplants). It also shows when there was prolific growth of coral (the brick pattern shapes). Now, overlay that chart with this one which shows various estimates for CO2 levels during that period of time.

 

Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

 

You can clearly see that the rate of change in CO2 levels does NOT correlate with the mass extinction events. For example, the extinction about 65 million years ago occurred when CO2 levels were relatively stable. The same is true for the extinction event 205 million years ago. But you just claimed that "whenever atmospheric CO2 increases, rapidly, a mass extinction event occurs". Can either of you Truthers explain this discrepancy?

 

Furthermore, if it is the RATE of CO2 change that coral reefs (and life) can't adapt to, then why are there vast periods of time when CO2 level was changing just as rapidly as it did during the extinction events (at 354 million and 434 million years ago, for example) but yet coral reefs were seeing prolific growth? I pointed out to you such a period from 410 million years ago to 354 million years. During that time, the CO2 level was rapidly climbing for tens of million of years and then rapidly fell for tens of millions of years. It changed at rates just as fast as it did during the extinction event periods. Yet, Veron said that coral reef growth was "prolific" during that time. Explain that, if you can, bob? :P

 

Well, one-liner? :D

 

First, whenever CO2 increases, rapidly, for whatever reason, life can't adapt. Your unreferenced crap doesn't address that plain fact, relative, to simultaneous greenhouse effects, leading to passing of the clathrate melting, to add methane, to the atmosphere AND ACID, TO THE WATER. Death comes.

 

Heard of HIV, yet, punk? Get your bois to shoot your ass, full of some of that gay crank, when you're getting too drunk and stupid, at some parade, unless you are too smelly for your own kind. In that case, just STFU and put your little head up somewhere warm, and roll on down the road.

 

You are so queer, you've deflected RAPID INCREASE, to "RATE of CO2 change," with a lot of rambling and deflection.

 

I acknowledge that you were queer, in 2012, you set off my 'dar, then, and here you are, queering around, all queeny and punky and conservaderpish, like a real, pandering, Log Cabin Republican, in 2014.

 

Of course, one of your pals actually monikered himself, 'Log Cabin Republican.'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surface temps are only up, about a degree Fahrenheit, since the start of widespread instrument measure.

If indeed that, since satellite data shows the temperature rise to be half what the land based database claims.

 

Mass Extinction Event 6 will make jellyfish the top oceanic predator, in a blink, while increasing eruptions AND storms will make humans endangered.

Repeat the meme. Repeat the meme.

 

Did anyone figure out why BeAPunk posts Log Cabin-rambles and sneaky smilies

What's curious is why you haven't figured out by now that playing games with my screenname just shouts "I lost this debate". :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a 'debate,' to you?

 

This thread is for adjusting my 'dar, using known right-wing-nut-jobs and queers, who happen to be right-wing-nut-jobs.

 

When you stop deflecting, by egregiously posting every last bit, of right-wing-nut-job-queer crap, like some guy, named Victoria, with explosive diarrhea, hey now.

 

Maybe you'll get an issue and get logical.

 

UNTIL THEN, we don't have a 'debate,' geek. We have an outing, for YOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, whenever CO2 increases, rapidly, for whatever reason, life can't adapt.

Repeat the meme. Repeat the meme.

 

Never mind that I pointed out many instances where CO2 rose rapidly …

 

… and life obviously adapted since there were no mass extinctions.

 

And you just ignored it.

 

Your unreferenced crap

What a pity that you can't adapt and learn to discover the source of a chart. :D

 

Heard of HIV, yet, punk?

Told you that he'd go this route, folks …

 

… rather than address the facts that challenge his hysteria concerning CO2.

 

But I wonder …

 

Does the "g" in Bobgnote stand for "gay"?

 

Bob … you really have a phobia about gays.

 

Why is that?

 

Did they do something to you?

 

Or is that because secretly you fear you might be one (not that that's a bad thing)?

 

I'm just saying …

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/04/homophobic_maybe_you_re_gay_the_new_york_times_on_a_new_study_of_secret_sexuality_.html "Are homophobes secretly gay? A new study purports to prove it."

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did anyone figure out why BeAPunk posts Log Cabin-rambles and sneaky smilies, or do we all have to TURN ON THE GODDAM GAY-DAR?

 

AND, next trick will be to rant, how the 'g' stands for something BeAPunk knows REALLY WELL, and then he'll introduce 'phobe,' since BeAPunk is a closet-queen, who wants to jump out, like it's a Chinese fire-drill, in SF, during Pride Week, and boo, I'm supposed to be afraid.

 

You dipshit. You don't 'debate.' You try out pick-up lines, on the internet, while yanking yourself, with filthy, greasy pliers.

If indeed that, since satellite data shows the temperature rise to be half what the land based database claims.

 

 

Repeat the meme. Repeat the meme.

 

 

What's curious is why you haven't figured out by now that playing games with my screenname just shouts "I lost this debate". :D

 

I guess that OP, with a concise graphic and allegation, how WATER makes up most climate-affected mass is easily forgotten, when you almost have thumb-spinning AND posting on the internet all figured out, with certain detractions, evident.

 

SO WHAT, about surface temps and your buggery readings, since you are too queer, for basketball, perv? Do water polo and drown.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND, next trick will be to rant, how the 'g' stands for something BeAPunk knows REALLY WELL, and then he'll introduce 'phobe,' since BeAPunk is a closet-queen, who wants to jump out, like it's a Chinese fire-drill, in SF, during Pride Week, and boo, I'm supposed to be afraid.

And now we have bob talking to himself. :D

 

I guess that OP, with a concise graphic and allegation, how WATER makes up most climate-affected mass is easily forgotten, when you almost have thumb-spinning AND posting on the internet all figured out, with certain detractions, evident.

 

SO WHAT, about surface temps and your buggery readings, since you are too queer, for basketball, perv? Do water polo and drown.

Seriously, folks, does ANYONE understand what this guy just said? :rolleyes:

 

Does he even really know? ;)

 

Why is it that ALL AGWalarmists grow incoherent the more you debate them? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising, storm intensities are increasing and we're experiencing unseasonable or more diverse weather patterns all over the country. Whether it's man made, natural or a combination of the two, something is most definitely going on and we need to drop our prejudices in order to take a hard look to see what it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...