More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

Anybody who doesn't think the government is fucking with the atmosphere is somebody who insists on navigating their life from within the comfy confines of their matrix bubble!!!


Ummm........does anybody ever look up in their skies these days?




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sdO8I3p6zJ4]CHEMTRAIL SPRAYING TANKER CAUGHT BY PRIVATE JET SPRAYING - YouTube[/ame]



Although......perhaps Im the asshole here and this jet is just writing "BETTY......WILL YOU MARRY ME?"

 

[gnarlylove]

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

Please explain. That's not really explaining it, its just pointing fingers with no elucidation. Walk me through the step by step argument.

Maybe I can reverse engineer your thinking...CO2 ppm have varied throughout history.The Earth evolved since its beginning 4.45 billion years ago and it had high ranges of CO2ppm. This must bring up averages. The world for its majority has had high ppm of CO2.

So we need to ask the question what is the average since the world began? You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

When I argue 450ppm is bad news I am strictly talking about non-apocalyptic problems. They will range from minor annoyances to possible extinction of coral and marine habitat. If the Earth reached 1000ppm humans would not die instantly, we might even thrive. However, that's a matter of how it affects our resources and food supply.

Just because the world had different ranges in the distant past says very little for today. The fact is the world was under 400ppm of CO2 for the last million years means a lot. According to your buddy's chart its been about 50 million years since ppm have exceeded ~500. That makes sense cause around that time modern mammals developed. Humans didn't split from apes till 5 million years ago when ppm were well under 400. Modern man didn't arrive till about 1.3 million years ago.

So the data seems to suggest man developed around the time the earth was fairly stable @ >300ppm. Currently we are well on our way to 450ppm and you say "let's include the first 3 billion years of earths existence when there were no plants or life as we know it today and see, that brings the averages way up!"

Indeed, it brings the averages up but your data is clearly irrelevant. The first 3 billion years speaks to a world when it was a super heated rock that was still forming and the biota we know today simply did not exist. Your argument excludes a crucial fact: our current biota is the only reason we are concerned for excessive ppm. If the last 50 million years helped create the lush world we have, I'd think pushing 500-700ppm is getting pretty high and will affect certain aspects of life. We still have a great chance to prevent this,hence my argument, but you think it's silly to be concerned. Noting the extinction of coral beyond 500ppm is of no concern because the world had for the longest time higher ppm then it has had the last 50+ million years. I don't buy this. Can you explain it?

 

[SSDD]

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

Please explain. That's not really explaining it, its just pointing fingers with no elucidation. Walk me through the step by step argument.

Maybe I can reverse engineer your thinking...CO2 ppm have varied throughout history.The Earth evolved since its beginning 4.45 billion years ago and it had high ranges of CO2ppm. This must bring up averages. The world for its majority has had high ppm of CO2.

So we need to ask the question what is the average since the world began? You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

When I argue 450ppm is bad news I am strictly talking about non-apocalyptic problems. They will range from minor annoyances to possible extinction of coral and marine habitat. If the Earth reached 1000ppm humans would not die instantly, we might even thrive. However, that's a matter of how it affects our resources and food supply.

Just because the world had different ranges in the distant past says very little for today. The fact is the world was under 400ppm of CO2 for the last million years means a lot. According to your buddy's chart its been about 50 million years since ppm have exceeded ~500. That makes sense cause around that time modern mammals developed. Humans didn't split from apes till 5 million years ago when ppm were well under 400. Modern man didn't arrive till about 1.3 million years ago.

So the data seems to suggest man developed around the time the earth was fairly stable @ >300ppm. Currently we are well on our way to 450ppm and you say "let's include the first 3 billion years of earths existence when there were no plants or life as we know it today and see, that brings the averages way up!"

Indeed, it brings the averages up but your data is clearly irrelevant. The first 3 billion years speaks to a world when it was a super heated rock that was still forming and the biota we know today simply did not exist. Your argument excludes a crucial fact: our current biota is the only reason we are concerned for excessive ppm. If the last 50 million years helped create the lush world we have, I'd think pushing 500-700ppm is getting pretty high and will affect certain aspects of life. We still have a great chance to prevent this,hence my argument, but you think it's silly to be concerned. Noting the extinction of coral beyond 500ppm is of no concern because the world had for the longest time higher ppm then it has had the last 50+ million years. I don't buy this. Can you explain it?

I gave you the data on temperature and atmospheric CO2 back to the Cambrian period. Here it is again.

[/URL][/IMG]

It looks like a rough average over the past 550 million years is in the neighborhood of 3500ppm. As I pointed out earlier, all animal phyla alive today first appeared on earth when the atmospheric CO2 concentrations were in excess of 5000ppm. Again, if you accept evolution, then you must also accept that survival at that level of atmospheric CO2 in our genes.

The entire history of earth tells us that life flourishes when temperatures are up and atmospheric CO2 is either irrelevant or beneficial. It is not the killing poison that you have, unfortunately, been led to believe.

By the way, we don't live in a lush world. We are living in an ice age. If you want to see what a lush world looks like you must go back about 30 million years to the mid point of the tertiary period before the global mean temp dropped below 17C and atmospheric CO2 dropped below 1000ppm. After that, ice started forming and the death began and life won't really bloom on this planet again till the temperatures have reached known historic levels that are most beneficial to life.

Here. Read a bit about what life was like on earth during the early to mid Tertiary Period back through the Cretaceous.

http://www.universetoday.com/79271/tertiary-period/

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurbasics/a/dinosaurages_4.htm

 

[polarbear]

LOSING



The 18 biggest green groups in America are pissed with the Obama SOTU speech. They don't like the "All of the above" policy. They want no fossil fuels. Mental cases.


INSIDE WASHINGTON: Greens hit Obama on energy plan - SFGate

And now we know why there was nothing they were hoping for in that speech .
It`s all over the international press.
Snowden-Dokument zeigt: NSA spähte Klimakonferenz aus - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Verhandlungsvorteile: NSA spähte Klimakonferenz aus

Dokumentet: NSA spionerede mod COP15 | Information

Det burde ikke ske i demokratiske lande og bryder med diplomatiske grundprincipper, siger klimaeksperter og NGO’er om afsløringen af, at NSA spionerede mod andre landes forberedelser til COP15 i København
31. januar 2014
Udgivelsesdata

I picked this article, they are all pretty well the same no matter in which language they are published and this one I don`t have to translate into English.
For the NSA, espionage was a means to strengthen the US position in climate negotiations | Information

After Obama had the documents, the NSA intercepted he could sit back, knowing that the US won`t be pressured into any agreement similar to the Kyoto accord.
...unlike the EU, which got sucked in to agree

And while the EU tried to comply with the recommendations from the UN Climate Panel by offering a 20 percent reduction by the year 2020 in relation to 1990, and was willing to increase this number to 30 percent if a global agreement were to be reached, the Americans continued to reject a reduction above 4-6 percent.

Most interesting is what all these articles also mention about the NSA`s motives

Then US Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, James R. Clapper, who now oversees the NSA as Director of National Intelligence, is quoted from an internal NSA conference: »Increasingly the environment is becoming an adversary for us. And I believe that the capabilities and assets of the Intelligence Community are going to be brought to bear increasingly in assessing the environment as an adversary.«
However, the document suggests that the NSA's actual focus in relation to climate change was spying on other countries to collect intelligence that would support American interests, rather than preventing future climate catastrophes. It describes the US as being under pressure because of its role as the historically largest carbon emitter. A pressure to which the NSA spies were already responding: »SIGINT (Signals Intelligence, ed.) has already alerted policymakers to anticipate specific foreign pressure on the United States and has provided insights into planned actions on this issue by key nations and leaders.«

So it`s pretty clear that the "adversary" NSA SIGINT refers to is not the climate, but categorizes all those who are pushing climate policy as an adversary to American interests....which probably also includes these 18 "green" groups that did not get from Obama what they expected.

Not that any one of these dimwits would ever figure out that they have overstayed their welcome since they voted for their Messiah.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

Please explain. That's not really explaining it, its just pointing fingers with no elucidation. Walk me through the step by step argument.

Maybe I can reverse engineer your thinking...CO2 ppm have varied throughout history.The Earth evolved since its beginning 4.45 billion years ago and it had high ranges of CO2ppm. This must bring up averages. The world for its majority has had high ppm of CO2.

So we need to ask the question what is the average since the world began? You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

When I argue 450ppm is bad news I am strictly talking about non-apocalyptic problems. They will range from minor annoyances to possible extinction of coral and marine habitat. If the Earth reached 1000ppm humans would not die instantly, we might even thrive. However, that's a matter of how it affects our resources and food supply.

Just because the world had different ranges in the distant past says very little for today. The fact is the world was under 400ppm of CO2 for the last million years means a lot. According to your buddy's chart its been about 50 million years since ppm have exceeded ~500. That makes sense cause around that time modern mammals developed. Humans didn't split from apes till 5 million years ago when ppm were well under 400. Modern man didn't arrive till about 1.3 million years ago.

So the data seems to suggest man developed around the time the earth was fairly stable @ >300ppm. Currently we are well on our way to 450ppm and you say "let's include the first 3 billion years of earths existence when there were no plants or life as we know it today and see, that brings the averages way up!"

Indeed, it brings the averages up but your data is clearly irrelevant. The first 3 billion years speaks to a world when it was a super heated rock that was still forming and the biota we know today simply did not exist. Your argument excludes a crucial fact: our current biota is the only reason we are concerned for excessive ppm. If the last 50 million years helped create the lush world we have, I'd think pushing 500-700ppm is getting pretty high and will affect certain aspects of life. We still have a great chance to prevent this,hence my argument, but you think it's silly to be concerned. Noting the extinction of coral beyond 500ppm is of no concern because the world had for the longest time higher ppm then it has had the last 50+ million years. I don't buy this. Can you explain it?

Maybe I can reverse engineer your thinking...CO2 ppm have varied throughout history.The Earth evolved since its beginning 4.45 billion years ago and it had high ranges of CO2ppm. This must bring up averages. The world for its majority has had high ppm of CO2.

There you go, for most of Earth's history, CO2 levels were much higher than 280ppm.

You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

Where did I insist that? Link?

They will range from minor annoyances to possible extinction of coral and marine habitat.

Do you have any info on how coral did when CO2 levels were 450ppm or higher?

 

[gnarlylove]

Here, lets take a look at what the temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have looked like since the cambrian period, some 550 million years ago.

Sure seems like a good graph. Sturdy. Your source R. Totten is a bit an unusual character. He is an Intelligent Design proponent. Years back I was heavily into this sort of debate and read widely about it. I was 100% for ID. Looking back, any real ID admits evolution but insists god helped. I won't rob you of that pleasure for I once lived that way too, but I will say that is strictly not science. The scientific method cannot at all come to the conclusions of the sort your main man is touting. All the science can say is "sure is complex."

Totten claims up and down scientists have been wrong and are wrong about this. He is loosing credibility to me. Anyone can claim something is wrong and phrase it intelligently and make fine points--and still be wrong. I'm fine with his data, but where did he get that chart? It would be crucial to know that piece of info, can you fetch it for me?

He's the type of person that believes his conclusions before he tests them--like most people. That is strictly not science, it's fault-finding philosophy, its philological dishonesty and equivocation. I know this game well and avoid it when I can. Coming to justifying your beliefs after you've devoted yourself to them is dishonesty and bigotry. Those engaged in this style of belief and argument can never be convinced that they are wrong: they don't believe because of the justification, they came to believe it for some interpersonal reasons that fulfilled a need or desire. Can we agree this makes for worthless debate? That is if you believe your arguments for a personal reason then those beliefs cannot be shaken by another person no matter the argument.

How do you explain that the most prolific period on earth with regard to animal life happened when atmospheric levels of CO2 were above 4000ppm?

Maybe his data is fudged and so we need to know where he pulled this chart from. I hope it comes from a juicy research paper. But I don't see how this challenges my argument since it speaks to a biota that is very different from our own. At best we are living in a world that has ancient and tenuous ties to the biota of yester-year (millions).

If the claim of climate science that CO2 is a pollutant and will start to degrade life on earth if concentrations exceed 350ppm, explain how life on earth came into being at levels orders of magnitude higher. How can you believe that CO2 is harmful when the entire history of earth has shown that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial to life on earth?

I don't "believe" the CO2 above 450ppm is harmful. I read that it is harming coral. So I conclude that 450ppm can indeed cause a problem. Thus more CO2 is not unilaterally a perfect thing.

I know this conflicts with your rudimentary belief that plants require CO2 and the more of it the more lush the world is. Let me assure you I understand this point and agree, but only partially. more CO2=better world is true if there were no variables. Variables make expected linear relationships not quite linear, sometimes even inversed.

Coral is affected beyond ~450ppm which supports rich zones of habitat, including a quarter of all fish in the ocean. That's one reason to re-think the rudiment.

The fact that nature is no longer accounting for 100% of CO2 release may impact how nature handles it. So there is another variable. Perhaps causing spikes that the current climate is not use to since it's not the one producing this new source of CO2. Just because plants 550 million years ago got along with high levels of CO2 says very little for how our VERY DIFFERENT climate and biota will react. Perhaps it won't be bad and only a few coral die and nothing else happens.

We can only know these things once its too late to go back. But why risk loosing lush ecosystems just because a few people are convinced the more CO2 always means more life. Again, I agree up to a point but the relationship is not linear, it includes lotsa variables we understand and variables that science has yet to account for or understand.

The main reason we are increasing CO2 is fossil fuels. If we chose to develop smarter technology, we'd have no argument here, no risk, no reason to debate. I'm not saying stop the fossil fuel industry either. Such a change won't come overnight and would take at least 20 years maybe 50 to develop a mostly renewable grid. But someday it's got to happen anyway because the definition of fossil is that they are finite and will run out (not anytime soon, mind you).

Thus, I see this as you denying risk and I am saying there are risks involved. You think I mean a doomsday scenario but I want to be clear: that couldn't be further from the truth. All AGW advocates think there are risks involved with excess CO2 and other greenhouse gases and we should consider this--we don't know all the risks but they won't be welcomed You make us out to be idiots who think the sky is falling (to help bolster your argument appeal although this is known as a strawman fallacy) when really denying risk is on the horizon is one of the oldest tactics in the book and tends to bring more harm than would have otherwise happened if we just did what we know will eventually have to: build a renewable grid.

 

[SSDD]

Maybe I can reverse engineer your thinking...CO2 ppm have varied throughout history.The Earth evolved since its beginning 4.45 billion years ago and it had high ranges of CO2ppm. This must bring up averages. The world for its majority has had high ppm of CO2.

Looking at the chart above, it appears that the average is a tick over 3000ppm

you go, for most of Earth's history, CO2 levels were much higher than 280ppm.

Yeah, about 3000ppm higher on average.

B]You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."[/B]

An atmosphere with CO2 at 450ppm is an atmosphere that is CO2 impoverished if one considers the norm on planet earth.

you have any info on how coral did when CO2 levels were 450ppm or higher?

Corals came into being at a time when atmospheric CO2 was above 4000ppm. if one accepts evolution then one must accept that survival at that level of CO2 is in the genes of modern corals. Every study of dying corals has found the damage to be something other than CO2...runoff, divers, boats, pollution, etc...not CO2.

 

[gnarlylove]

Where did I insist that? Link?

Yes please provide a link or paper that shows CO2 ppm data going back to the earths beginning. Why do you believe CO2 ppm has been much higher than current times?

Do you have any info on how coral did when CO2 levels were 450ppm or higher?

You are making no effort. The 3 research papers I linked have extensive reports on this very question. They have been answered and yet you ask where is the answer. The post is http://www.usmessageboard.com/8550649-post2583.html

Read them or don't ask. I want you to learn this so you can understand how to do research.

 

[gnarlylove]

Corals came into being at a time when atmospheric CO2 was above 4000ppm. if one accepts evolution then one must accept that survival at that level of CO2 is in the genes of modern corals. Every study of dying corals has found the damage to be something other than CO2...runoff, divers, boats, pollution, etc...not CO2.

I can't help but think this is a ploy to support your argument and not really an argument. Clearly you haven't read about modern coral. I refer you to http://www.usmessageboard.com/8550649-post2583.html and click the links. These are people studying the modern coral and answer what we are talking about. They have quite different conclusions than you for some reason. So I can't help think your reasoning is not science but an afterthought.

Genes of 500 million years ago does not imply resiliency like you are trying to pass off. Show me some peer reviewed research that shows coral ancestors still have the resliency today. Better yet, why don't you show me another chart that isn't made up by R Totten.

The only thing you have to go off is it "sounds right." TO you it HAS TO BE RIGHT or it wouldn't fit your worldview and so you'd be wrong. But you can never be wrong so I must be the one that's wrong, and so must the scientists who study the coral because I'm only claiming what they have wrote about. You are justifying these beliefs after you already were determined you are going to believe them no matter what anyone says, especially me. That's why any science you quote comes from others who aren't scientists but rank devotion over reason and science.

It's bad science. It's makes for even worse debate since you are 100% unwavering. You came to your beliefs because of a personal need or desire. It fit your core worldview and made sense to you. The trouble is this is not a good reason, in fact it's no reason at all to think your reasoning is valid for anyone else. It's only valid for you and your personal needs.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Every study of dying corals has found the damage to be something other than CO2...runoff, divers, boats, pollution, etc...not CO2."

since you've read these studies you would surely oblige and let me read them too. If you are right and they say what you said, then clearly I have no choice to admit I was wrong and believe what you believe. This sounds like heavy incentive to provide those links...I'll be waiting

 

[westwall]

Where did I insist that? Link?

Yes please provide a link or paper that shows CO2 ppm data going back to the earths beginning. Why do you believe CO2 ppm has been much higher than current times?

Do you have any info on how coral did when CO2 levels were 450ppm or higher?

You are making no effort. The 3 research papers I linked have extensive reports on this very question. They have been answered and yet you ask where is the answer. The post is http://www.usmessageboard.com/8550649-post2583.html

Read them or don't ask. I want you to learn this so you can understand how to do research.

And looky here. This is another report that shows your reports to have been in error. In fact there are SEVERAL reports that show yours to be wrong. Whenever the theory that acidic waters will kill the corals the corals have shown the researchers to be ridiculously wrong.

Makes sense. Corals evolved when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was 20 TIMES what it is today.

It never ceases to amaze me how these socks pop up and try and baffle people with this crap that has been shown REPEATEDLY to be horsecrap. Sheer, unadulterated horsecrap.



"However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters. Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM. Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae and weakly calcified forams."

Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/tbralower/Bralower2002.pdf

ingentaconnect Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum...

 

[SSDD]

Sure seems like a good graph. Sturdy. Your source R. Totten is a bit an unusual character. He is an Intelligent Design proponent. Years back I was heavily into this sort of debate and read widely about it. I was 100% for ID. Looking back, any real ID admits evolution but insists god helped. I won't rob you of that pleasure for I once lived that way too, but I will say that is strictly not science. The scientific method cannot at all come to the conclusions of the sort your main man is touting. All the science can say is "sure is complex."

Damn but you are a wanker. I don't even know who R. Totten is. The information presented on the graph is unopposed by modern science regardless of what the man's other beliefs are. You just engaged in a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem. If you have a problem with the data presented by the graph, by all means speak up and show me some credible sources to support your complaint.

his data is fudged and so we need to know where he pulled this chart from. I hope it comes from a juicy research paper. But I don't see how this challenges my argument since it speaks to a biota that is very different from our own. At best we are living in a world that has ancient and tenuous ties to the biota of yester-year (millions).

That chart has been around for a long time and has been a steady source of information throughout the era of the AGW hoax. Thus far, no one has suggested that the numbers are anything other than the best modern science is capable of. If you have other information, by all means, lets see it.

don't "believe" the CO2 above 450ppm is harmful. I read that it is harming coral. So I conclude that 450ppm can indeed cause a problem. Thus more CO2 is not unilaterally a perfect thing.

Every study of coral die offs has found that the corals died from farm run off, fuel leaks in boats, careless humans, pollution, other animals and a host of other causes....not CO2. Corals evolved when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm. It is in their genes to survive at that level.

know this conflicts with your rudimentary belief that plants require CO2 and the more of it the more lush the world is. Let me assure you I understand this point and agree, but only partially. more CO2=better world is true if there were no variables. Variables make expected linear relationships not quite linear, sometimes even inversed.

This isn't a rudimentary belief. We have a pretty damned good idea of what life on earth was like during the numerous periods spanning back into the dim past. What variables do you suppose apply today but didn't when atmospheric CO2 was between 1000 and 7000ppm?

is affected beyond ~450ppm which supports rich zones of habitat, including a quarter of all fish in the ocean. That's one reason to re-think the rudiment.

Says who? Based on what observations? Here are some peer reviewed, published studies regarding CO2's effect on corals:

Diverse coral communities in naturally acidified waters of a Western Pacific reef - Shamberger - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Inter Research*»*MEPS*»*v486*»*p143-151

Variability and trends of ocean acidification in the Southern California Current System: A time series from Santa Monica Bay - Leinweber - 2013 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

fact that nature is no longer accounting for 100% of CO2 release may impact how nature handles it. So there is another variable. Perhaps causing spikes that the current climate is not use to since it's not the one producing this new source of CO2. Just because plants 550 million years ago got along with high levels of CO2 says very little for how our VERY DIFFERENT climate and biota will react. Perhaps it won't be bad and only a few coral die and nothing else happens.

You don't need to look back 550 million years ago. You only need to look back to what the earth was like just prior to entering the ice age which the planet is trying to climb out of at present. That earth was lush, animal life proliferated and atmospheric CO2 was between 1000, and 2500ppm.

can only know these things once its too late to go back. But why risk loosing lush ecosystems just because a few people are convinced the more CO2 always means more life. Again, I agree up to a point but the relationship is not linear, it includes lotsa variables we understand and variables that science has yet to account for or understand.

We have no lush ecosystems. We have the ecosystems that can survive in an ice age. The earth won't again be lush till the global mean temperature rises 4 or 5 degrees as history has shown us again and again.

main reason we are increasing CO2 is fossil fuels. If we chose to develop smarter technology, we'd have no argument here, no risk, no reason to debate. I'm not saying stop the fossil fuel industry either. Such a change won't come overnight and would take at least 20 years maybe 50 to develop a mostly renewable grid. But someday it's got to happen anyway because the definition of fossil is that they are finite and will run out (not anytime soon, mind you).

Tell me gnarley, what percentage of atmospheric CO2 do you think man is responsible for? Here is a hint, we are not the main reason for increasing CO2. Our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 budget isn't even enough to overcome the natural variation from one year to the next. Our contribution to CO2 is a tick under 3% of a gas that only constitutes 0.035% of the atmosphere. The very idea that that constitutes a danger, considering the past history of the earth simply foolish.

, I see this as you denying risk and I am saying there are risks involved.

Since we have a pretty good knowledge of what earth was like prior to entering the present ice age, your claim of risk simply doesn't hold water.

You make us out to be idiots who think the sky is falling

Only because you play the part so well.

when really denying risk is on the horizon is one of the oldest tactics in the book and tends to bring more harm than would have otherwise happened if we just did what we know will eventually have to: build a renewable grid.

Ever notice that when you finish looking at the horizon in front of you, you can turn around and look at the horizon behind you? Take a good long look at that horizon behind you (the past) and ask yourself what the hell you are afraid of. We are coming out of an ice age for Pete's sake. What the hell are you so afraid of? Do you really believe ice age is the normal condition for planet earth? Do you think anything we do or don't do can change the fact that the earth is exiting an ice age? And you wonder why we think you are a bunch of loons.

 

[gnarlylove]

The bottom two are older papers and the bottom link does not talk about coral, its about mico-organisms. We aren't talking about those, or at least I wasn't. I made no claims about foraminifera. So let's tick that off the list.

The middle link is also far from our discussion. I am not talking about thermal issues anyway, I have focused on CO2 ppm, for which this link offers no information. oligotrophy is not coral, it's defined as an organism that needs little nutrients. Sounds like you are reaching wide to find arcane papers that you can then claim destroys my conclusions but in reality they offer no information, they are in different worlds.

The first link is also about plankton too and thus has no relevant info to the discussion at hand. How can you confuse the plankton and coral? Of course we can't read this paper and thus an abstract is hardly substantive. I don't doubt it supports the claim about "becomes more, not less" but they aren't talking about coral.

I see your ploy to post some reasonable science but try to only post the ones you can read at length. Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where did I insist that? Link?

Yes please provide a link or paper that shows CO2 ppm data going back to the earths beginning. Why do you believe CO2 ppm has been much higher than current times?

Do you have any info on how coral did when CO2 levels were 450ppm or higher?

You are making no effort. The 3 research papers I linked have extensive reports on this very question. They have been answered and yet you ask where is the answer. The post is http://www.usmessageboard.com/8550649-post2583.html

Read them or don't ask. I want you to learn this so you can understand how to do research.

You made the following claim.

You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

Where did I insist that? Link?
Or admit you lied.

The 3 research papers I linked have extensive reports on this very question.

Your 3 papers discuss the past, when CO2 was over 450PPM, and how that impacted coral?
Are you sure?

 

[gnarlylove]

R Totten is the writer of your AGW hoax article that you relied on to "tear me down" with your thunderous post. You turned it into a reason for you to claim I was committing a fallacy because you didn't understand it. All I'm asking is to provide the source to this chart or provide another chart.

Saying it fits your idea of AGW hoax is all the reason to question its credibility. Your pals were staunch to claim the Oregon Petiton had great validity when it has no credibilty. All I'm asking is for you to produce your own claims. Don't find an obscure chart that you can't find anywhere else. Maybe it isn't obscure and that's all I ask, show it to me elsewhere or preferably in its original paper. Or at least give me another chart that resembles similar findings. I don't doubt they are right, but when you can't reproduce it, it isn't science. Maybe this will help:
"An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.” Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs during the ancient Pliocene Era which was the last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million. See http://scienceblogs.com/significant...-at-400-parts-per-million-humans-didnt-exist/

But after reading the rest, you clearly have no interest in coming to compromises, in faithfully representing your opponents position. You possess the debilitating necessity to be right all the time and so debate with you is an exercise in futility. Maybe one day you will realize unwavering ideas tend to bring harm and are less important than life and people. Of course you think you are a philosophic genius but I doubt you have an academic background and so your self-taught philosophy was to serve your needs of being right. This was not the purpose of philosophy but is typical of an American who re-purposes this tool to serve their needs. Brilliant indeed. Your undertones of anger and bigotry are well represented and do not fool anyone except those who already believe. Why? Because they value devotion over reality.

 

[gnarlylove]

You made the following claim.

You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

Where did I insist that? Link?
Or admit you lied.

I'm asking you a question.
Will you provide the information where you found that historical CO2 levels were much higher than today?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You made the following claim.

You have not provided any data yet you insist it totally levels the belief that crossing over 450ppm is totally "the norm."

Where did I insist that? Link?
Or admit you lied.

I'm asking you a question.
Will you provide the information where you found that historical CO2 levels were much higher than today?

You claimed 280ppm was "normal".

Sticking by that claim?

 

[skookerasbil]

Shit......SSDD and Todd are sure schooling the AGW k00ks tonight!!!



Classic!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

More on the "consensus science" screwing around with the data >>>>


The Strata-Sphere » Update II On The Rigged Global Warming Data

 

[skookerasbil]

LOSING >>>>


The Strata-Sphere » How Climate Models Prove There Is No CO2 Driven Warming