Says the guy who can't name a single physical law that either supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.
Now that's interesting bob; you complaining about the dates of the published, peer reviewed studies I provided to you. Especially considering that the basis for anthropogenic climate change alarmism is based on a junior high level experiments done in the late 1800's by Tyndal and Arrhenius, which, by the way, were disproved shortly after they were published by professor Woods. The world is still waiting on a single real world experiment that proves the greenhouse effect claimed by those quaint, 19th century philosophers.
As to the links to the effects of CO2 and acidification on coral, I suggest that you look again. They were spot on target and effectively dismissed your hysterical handwaving.
So now you are in a quasi panic over rainwater entering the ocean? Geez guy, do you ever get any sleep living in such a state of agnst?
Your crazy submarine pictures are very interesting but unscientific. Did you read any of the studies, to which you linked? I sure won't pay $40, to look at one of those obsolete studies.
Of course you should ignore me since you are completely duped and unable to answer a single question I have put to you.
As to Stefan-Boltzman, I am afraid that it is you who does not accept the facts. As I have already stated, the Stefan-Boltzman law is one of the laws that say pretty explicitly that a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science is not possible. We all know that the math is way over your head, but what the hell, lets give it a shot.
Here is the Stefan-Boltzman law:
As it applies to energy exchanges between the earth and atmosphere (claimed greenhouse effect) where a warm object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings, the Stefan-Boltzman law is expressed as follows:
)
Where P=the net radiated power, A= the net radiating area, 
= the Stefan-Boltzman constant 
, e= emissivity, T= temperature of the radiator, and 
= the temperature of the surroundings. As you can see, aside from being a formula to determine the emissivity of a black body (which the earth is not, a strike one for your side) and a perfect black body at that (strike two for your side) the Stefan-Boltzman law describes heat exchange from a warm object (the earth) to its cooler surroundings (the atmosphere). Being founded on, and predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, there is no leeway within the Stefan-Boltzman law for anything like backradiation. (strike three, you're out).
Of course, if you believe that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong and the Stefan-Boltzman law which is entirely supported by and actually predicted by the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, feel free to show where backradiation can happen within that equation. If you need an equation editor to write out your equations for use on this forum, a good one can be found here: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php Just type in your equation then copy and paste the edited form below the text box. I look forward to seeing you prove both the second law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzman law.
Of course the climate is changing. Can you name any period in history where it was static?
Upon what do you base that claim bob? Climate models which have shown themselves to be entirely unreliable? They fail every time they are tried because they are based on fictitious physics bob. They assume backradiation, for example, in conjunction with the Stefan-Boltzman law which assumes the earth is a black body and impossible backradiation can be happening. Aside from that glaring error, those models you believe in model the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate, has no night time, and is radiated across its entire surface by 1/4 of the actual radiation that is coming in from the sun. The models don't represent the earth as anything like the earth as it actually exists so what makes you believe that they will produce output that in any way resembles the actual earth?
The photos prove beyond any doubt that an ice free arctic isn't anything new or particularly unusual. Sorry bob.
Issac? That little storm that might be the first hurricane to hit the US since 2005? Are you going to wave your hands hysterically and claim that global warming is causing more and stronger atlantic hurricanes as well?
