The recent Greenland sheet ice melt is a harbinger, of Mass Extinction Event 6:

Go ahead and link, to YOUR Veron 2008, since my understanding of Veron 2008 is it reviews a lot of corals, from many different coral records, which show various effects, of oceanic acidification, throughout geologic history.

If you don't know about oceanic acidification or how it happens or how it kills, go ahead and say so.

If you don't know how CO2 and CH4 out-gas, given Phase I warming, say so, but you use loaded language, relative to a "crackpot theory," when you don't read or write, very well. You aren't for publishing, and when you won't link or reference, you aren't believable.

You refer to "tripe" and "bubble" and "funny," when you cut English class, in whatever school you went to, and you won't link to science reports or studies, while making allusions.

Hey, dude! I linked to all kinds of stuff, and when I did that, at another thread, you put up: "TL; DR." Which one of your loser posts is believable? They are wall to wall LFs, and then you put up, in English RWNJ, how you believe MY posts, with links and other references, are made of LFs.

NO. YOU post loaded language, in RWNJ rants, deflecting, to ignore issues.

 

We're all gonna die!!!

 

One thing is certain, both in the temperature and CO2 data, switching from proxy to actual data shows a large divergence. For instance, some recordings of CO2 in the 1800's were as high as 550 ppm and many higher than the standard used by AGWers for that period. If you want an actual comparison to proxy data, you have to continue to use proxy data or you get the large divergence that you see. Since the variation at Mauna Loa is as much as 600 ppm a day, using proxy data to compare to proxy data is the only way to compare to the past.

 

Heard of LINKS?

When you go off, at least refer to something, which already has a link, somewhere at this thread or elsewhere, at PF.

Here, you introduce "divergence," between proxy and "actual data," without a link. Do you have a clue, why you don't make any sense? Do you have a clue, to which proxies or "actual" data you might be referring, either or both?

You move, to an outrageous allegation, how CO2 "recordings" in the 1800s hit 550 ppm, when CO2 concentration was moving up, from 280 ppm, throughout that century. Then you introduce the term, "AGWers," without any reference, to which persons that might refer to.

Your allegation of a "600 ppm" swing at Mauna Loa is ridiculous. Do you have a link, to some site, which makes stuff up, for you, or are your rants 100% original, as in, YOU made all this up?

CO2 was about 397 ppm at Mauna Loa, just the other day. No "600" readings, guy. Is this more of your "engineer" media?

 

You make continued assumptions based on what you are told from the AGW proponents without looking into any other data. That is what true believers do. You can find all you want to read but I doubt you would if it does not fit into your world view. You need to study this some more instead of making the silly outrageous claims of doom and gloom.

 

Of course, instead of ranting out another load of RWNJ loony-language, you could LINK, to some report or study, but instead of going there, you refer to "silly outrageous claims of doom and gloom."

In RWNJ, commas need not apply, since you are just jamming clauses and adjectives, up against each other. As long as you include, "doom and gloom, warmists, AGW proponents, true believers, silly outrageous claims," it makes enough sense, for you to plop it down, at PF. Heard of bandwidth? You seem to have a usual tendency, to just use it all up.

Hey, when you link to something, we can both have a go at it, or you can post more deflection, which indicates you are just typing, in a rubber room.

 

True believers like you ignore other data so why waste my time. You are only capable of communicating like an adolescent which you probably are. The data is out there, but I doubt you even look for it.

 

Fool. Your nothing without a link.

 

Why waste your time? You didn't waste your time, when it was time, to LIE. You just wound up and posted two lies, about CO2 concentration. Why not go get some real data? I already dropped links. Here's some:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/085G2151L3NLT871/primary

ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/mbw/Ocean_Acidification_Papers/Veron_2008.pdf

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html

 

Veron 2008, re CO2 causing mass extinction events:

ftp://ftp.gfdl.noaa.gov/pub/mbw/Ocean_Acidification_Papers/Veron_2008.pdf

-----------------------

Tipping point:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...astrophic-tipping-point-warn-scientists-video

-----------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57448690/un-humanity-speeding-down-unsustainable-path

 

You mean like your lie about the Holocene interglacial? See how that works? You could look it up, but you won't because you will find you were wrong. Don't worry, a true believer like you will not look at other data. That is what you do. You do not consider the source unless it is not in line with your true belief, then you resort to denigration and name calling. It is not smart or worthy to debate someone like you so I don't bother. Enjoy your drama and hysteria.

 

What "lie" about what Holocene interglacial? You mean some explanation I made, in reply to some tweaking post, at some thread, which explained the several Holocene warm periods, over about 11,700 years?

Could you be referring, to how we aren't going into re-glaciation, from here? Of course, we don't get to know, since you post LIES, without links, whenever you want to. You don't have any CO2 level readings or links to these, which support your rant, at the other thread, which claims a reading over 500 ppm, in the 1800s, or a swing of 600 ppm, at Mauna Loa. You LIE. You don't link.

Do you mind linking your tweaky, lying accusations, to a thread and a post?

Your posts are nothing, but tweaky, loaded language, without references, to any posts, or links, to studies or reports. Enjoy smoking, from your pants catching fire.

 

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013...te-change-tipping-points-within-our-lifetime/

Like this?

1. CO2 and industrial GHGs go off the hook, while humans pollute and cause extinctions
2. all climate affected masses start to warm up, so perennial ice and methane clathrates melt and evaporate
3. storms increase in number and severity
4. waters acidify (50 year lag, due to CO2 degradation cycle, in the oceans), while sea level starts to rise
5. volcanoes erupt
6. cycles of volcanic winter and warming rachet floods and acidification and sea level, while humans begin to depopulate
7. jellyfish become top oceanic predator, while humans either live on collectives, or they die off

These look like Earth's operative tipping points, to me!

See also:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../climate-change-tipping-points-stories-future

 

Yet another case of “we have no idea why it happened, we didn’t predict it, we cannot predict it, it had profound consequences, the models that should have predicted it didn’t” that still manages to avoid concluding that a) the Global Climate Modelss were wrong yet again and hence cannot be trusted and b) that this wasn’t actual evidence of CAGW after all. Because even though we could not predict the diversion in the jet stream, even though we do not know exactly what caused it or what caused the causes of it or what caused the causes that caused the causes of it we can of course be certain that we humans caused it with our carbon dioxide.

 

Goobles! Gobbles! Goo, without punctuation or links.

We do know:
1. Mass Extinction 6 is underway
2. A mass extinction happens EVERY TIME CO2 GOES UP, fast
3. CO2 is rising, in atmospheric concentration, faster than ever before, and CO2 leads surface temps
4. GHGs are rising, in atmospheric concentration, faster than ever before
5. You seem to be writing, while too excited, to concentrate
6. Don't text and drive, mmm-kay?

 

Something tells me that claim isn't close to being accurate.
IF the Greenland ice sheet melted, sea level would rise by around 7 metres, that's a bit over (Fat Al's) 20 ft in old money.

 

If only you had any actual facts instead of spouting off this nonsense. Oh, and extra points for the smarmy attitude. Typical of a true believer.

 

The Greenland Ice Sheet is 3 km thick and it was a surface melt in 2012 due to the jet stream but actual facts are not important to the true believers.

 

Yes, I recall it caused quite a stir among the faithful who thought their prayers had been answered.

 

Ayuh,.... Almost as ironic as the Global Warmin' Scientists currently stuck the the ice, in Antarctica, in the Summer time,...

 

ayuh...well there's a epic display of ignorance...summer pack ice MOVES! it's the reason ice breakers accompany ships, to free them when ice packs shift in the wind and currents and close open water...ironic how someone who knows so little thinks he knows more than experts in their scientific fields

 

You mean like the experts that got stuck in ice?

 

What you mean like these experts aboard the good ship .......?

 

even ice breakers get caught by ice flows, are you claiming those experts don't know as much as you?...when the wind shifts and hundreds or Sq kms of ice move there is no getting out of the way....

 

It was interesting how our lefty BBC in the UK gradually downplayed the comic irony of this situation. The passengers on board went from being 'climate scientists' to 'activists' to just plain old 'tourists' in the space of a just few days !