Ocean acidification

[RollingThunder]

What do you consider instantly? The global warming crew has this as a problem for the last twelve years at least. The Industrial Revolution happened over one hundred years ago. CO2 has a cycle just like most things in nature. You sound like this is an immediate problem, yet claim we have a long time before this threat is realized. Just a tad contradictory. Your the one reciting talking points rollingturd. I have done some study and find you and your group to be cheaters, liars and distorters of the worst sort.

It took the Siberian Traps volcanoes a million years to produce the "dire effects" so your incredibly silly claim that we don't have a problem if there are no immediate "dire effects" is really retarded. This is an immediate problem even though the full effects haven't been seen yet because whether or not we keep on raising CO2 levels will determine how bad the situation gets later, in a few decades or a few centuries.

You haven't "studied" shit, dillwad. You're an ignorant, stupid, anti-science denier cultist who gets all his 'opinions' and 'beliefs' from Rush or FauxNews or some denier cult blog.

How much Carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to cause that catastrophe according to your article?

13,000 to 43,000 gigatons...

how much can man produce if he burns up all the fossil fuels on the planet according to your article?

5,000 gigatons.....

Your claim is busted flat on its face, by its own source..... Nice work genius.. Learn to read before trying the scare tactic......

You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.

 

[gslack]

It took the Siberian Traps volcanoes a million years to produce the "dire effects" so your incredibly silly claim that we don't have a problem if there are no immediate "dire effects" is really retarded. This is an immediate problem even though the full effects haven't been seen yet because whether or not we keep on raising CO2 levels will determine how bad the situation gets later, in a few decades or a few centuries.

You haven't "studied" shit, dillwad. You're an ignorant, stupid, anti-science denier cultist who gets all his 'opinions' and 'beliefs' from Rush or FauxNews or some denier cult blog.

How much Carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to cause that catastrophe according to your article?

13,000 to 43,000 gigatons...

how much can man produce if he burns up all the fossil fuels on the planet according to your article?

5,000 gigatons.....

Your claim is busted flat on its face, by its own source..... Nice work genius.. Learn to read before trying the scare tactic......

You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.

Well then asshole why don't you correct the numbers..... Can't can you moron....

yeah thats what happens when your agenda is fear and bullshit driven. The facts come out sooner or later....

YOUR article YOU posted made the claim that over a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere the oceans then became acidic....

That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......

IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends.

Want me to make it simpler for you?

• Then and natural (not man made)
  
• over a million years
  
• 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere

• Now and Anthropogenic (man made)
  
• A little over 220 to 260 or so years
  
• 5,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere if we burn up all the fossil fuels on the planet.

Understand yet slow boy???? its simple we cannot reproduce that catastrophe using fossil fuels, its not possible. We do not have the fossil fuels to do it period....

Now go and get some more crap you don't read or understand so we can show the rest of the forum your bullshit....

 

[saveliberty]

The faither seems to need a rest. He's tried every form of math possible to get the numbers to work in his favor. Sad part is you used his own article to disprove his point. alarmist are like that. Read the sensational headline and they run around like chickens thinking the sky is falling.

Can we stop the hydrologic cycle? CO2 cycle? Oxygen cycle? Plate movement? The tides? Our influence on this planet is not nearly as great as we would think. You can see the Great Wall from space. Of course you can see a giant beaver dam too.

 

[gslack]

The faither seems to need a rest. He's tried every form of math possible to get the numbers to work in his favor. Sad part is you used his own article to disprove his point. alarmist are like that. Read the sensational headline and they run around like chickens thinking the sky is falling.

Can we stop the hydrologic cycle? CO2 cycle? Oxygen cycle? Plate movement? The tides? Our influence on this planet is not nearly as great as we would think. You can see the Great Wall from space. Of course you can see a giant beaver dam too.

The truly idiotic part in it? I don't think he or any of his brethren would have noticed the problem even if they actually HAD read it. They are blinded to anything other than what their perceived betters tell them. And as long as they view themselves and their party or its candidates that way, they will not see anything other than what they are told.

They do not see the problems like the ones I pointed out in the theory itself, nor even in the articles they use as evidence. They do not see it because the idea of it goes against what they are told by their perceived betters. They still live under the false assumption political party ideologies claimed by their representatives, are what they will get from them. And no matter how many times this is shown false, they will refuse to see it any other way.....

This in my opinion is the most dangerous problem we have ever faced in this country. People who are that blind are the same types who allowed Hitler, Napoleon, and all the other tyrants to do what they did.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have a science degree dillwad. That is why it is easy to see past your ignorance.

Must make it easier. I can figure it out pretty easy WITHOUT one.

 

[RollingThunder]

How much Carbon was spewed into the atmosphere to cause that catastrophe according to your article?

13,000 to 43,000 gigatons...

how much can man produce if he burns up all the fossil fuels on the planet according to your article?

5,000 gigatons.....

Your claim is busted flat on its face, by its own source..... Nice work genius.. Learn to read before trying the scare tactic...... I am a

You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.

Well then asshole why don't you correct the numbers..... Can't can you moron....

yeah thats what happens when your agenda is fear and bullshit driven. The facts come out sooner or later....

YOUR article YOU posted made the claim that over a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere the oceans then became acidic....

No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. The article did not say that it took a million years or that it took the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.

That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......

IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends.

Your whole rant here is based on your moronic inability to grasp reality. If someone tells you that eating a pound of cyanide will kill you, I'm sure you would conclude that eating a spoonful must therefore be safe. LOL. You are such a retard, gslack-jawed-idiot.

 

[saveliberty]

Of course rolling in turds ignores that an increase in CO2 can benefit plant life in the oceans. Plants are an important part of the planet too. Can't even spell planets without a plant.

That plant life might lead to an important positive change in our environment. Seriously, unless man completely stopped producing electricity, using gas engines burning trees and a few other necessary items we can't drop the CO2 man-made levels enough to make any real difference.

 

[gslack]

You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.

Well then asshole why don't you correct the numbers..... Can't can you moron....

yeah thats what happens when your agenda is fear and bullshit driven. The facts come out sooner or later....

YOUR article YOU posted made the claim that over a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere the oceans then became acidic....

No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. The article did not say that it took a million years or that it took the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.

That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......

IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends.

Your whole rant here is based on your moronic inability to grasp reality. If someone tells you that eating a pound of cyanide will kill you, I'm sure you would conclude that eating a spoonful must therefore be safe. LOL. You are such a retard, gslack-jawed-idiot.

You really want to try again scoko? Okay....

No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. The article did not say that it took a million years or that it took the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.

Sure you want to try and lie now after all your other displays of ignorance? okay its your funeral....

Your article link... Scientists link ocean acidification to prehistoric mass extinction
One brief part backing my point.....

Payne calculated that the eruptions, which lasted upwards of a million years, released 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons (1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons) of carbon in the atmosphere. By comparison, scientists estimate we would release an estimated 5,000 gigatons of carbon if we used up all the fossil fuels in the Earth.

Now right there what does it say? WHy it says exactly what I claimed it said.... Even with the lowest estimate of the previous amounts from the past we are not even able to produce half that amount burning all the fossil fuels on the planet. Pardon me if I do not panic yet.....

Then they say these things.....

Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate. The end-Permian extinction could be viewed as a "worst case scenario" for what we could be facing as we burn more fossil fuels and increase ocean acidity, he said.

"We won't necessarily end up with a world that looks as bad as it did after the end-Permian extinction, but that event highlights the fact that things can go very, very wrong," Payne said.

Dude they tell you the reality, but you see what the media and your side wants you to see. They say it plain as day, but all you see or hear is "the oceans are going to turn acidic and kill the planet".... Grow up man....

Oh I think I have a far better understanding of this than you do bullshiter. If not, you would be able to come up with some kind evidence or argument better than this semantical nonsense you are trying now...

Face it you and your faithful got caught again taking headlines and drawing conclusions. You fuckheads don't read any of it, you don't understand anything about it beyond the spin the media puts on it, and whats worse you try and claim its science... No shit for brains, the actual science is in the simple math and data in it. We can't duplicate this event burning fossil fuels get over it....

Now as usual you try and say this kind of crap... "it might not take as much CO2" or any other number of excuses you weasels pull out of your asses... BULLSHIT! You are wrong, and your so-called experts are on the take. You and your psuedo-science based nonsense have had your day to con people, that day is over....

BTW, what does "at some point" mean exactly??? Sounds like you don't fucking know....

 

[westwall]

I think the best description of the "science" of climatology was uttered in the book "Volcano Weather" by Henry Stommel who started his scientific career in 1944 at Woods Hole. From 1960 to 1978 he was Professor of Oceanography at MIT and Harvard with a specialty of the general circulation of the ocean with a special emphasis on th Gulf Stream, the Kuroshio, Somali and Brazil currents.

On page 123 of his book while describing the origins of how the temperature records were originated (in very great detail I might add) he states, "It is therefore difficult to judge how meaningful estimates of "average world temperature" before the 1880's really are. Monitoring of changing deep ocean temperatures is very sparse even today. It is a rash oceanographer who will announce any statement as to whether the ocean is warming or cooling as a whole. It would be nice to know, because the ocean stores a great reservoir of heat that could affect climate.

"We can scarcely dispute the notion that the primary task of those interested in climate is to discover new kinds of data, new techniques of analyisis and to assemble measurements with the greatest geographical coverage, at all altitudes in the air and depths in the ocean, as frequently as possible. Every hopeful lead, be it tree rings, glaciers, ice cores or the ocean bottom, needs exploration.

"In contrast to the unifying role that theory plays in the exact sciences, theory in climatology is a gloss that keeps the task intersting."

I highlighted the exact sciences part and he italicized the gloss in his original. The book was published in 1983 so even back then climatology was not considered any more of a hard science than it is now.

ps...........anything to do with climate is not science. Lets just get that out of the way please. Its not any more "science" than any of the social sciences.

Science is chemistry..........physics. Thats it..........everything else is hardly hard science. There is zero consensus on any "science" that is environmentally related. Its all conjecture and depends upon which theory one wants to embrace.

You say that only because you're an ignorant retard with his head jammed firmly up his ass. Sane, rational, intelligent adults know better than to believe your denier cult brand of anti-science bullshit.

 

[westwall]

Whoooooooopss.....I trump your BS study with a report from a noted IPCC scientist. Read on McDuff.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

​

This thread is about the theory that atmospheric CO2 causes ocean to turn acidic killing coral and similar life forms.... YOUR SIDE makes the claim as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, the oceans absorb more CO2 lowering their PH and turning them acidic. This acidification according to their theory kills coral and various other life forms that are especially sensitive to lowered PH and acidification.

NOW PLAY TIME IS OVER DIPSHIT!!!!!
------------------------------------------------

What don't you understand about that? It's a good thing playtime is over, because you apparently need to hit the books. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 dissolved into the ocean. More CO2 in water means lower pH. That's simple basic science.

Why don't you and spiderman tube have a little aside on that then. He seems confused. Then you two can come back here and counter how we have experienced much higher levels of CO2 in the water and the undersea creatures adapted.

Like most of the scientifically ignorant denier cultists, you fasten onto theoretical arguments that you don't have the background to understand and ignore the measured physical reality that the scientists are talking about. Ancient corals had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to changing ocean pH. It is quite possible that there was some massive die offs of coral at the times when CO2 levels were higher but the surviving coral adapted over long time frames. Modern corals are being subjected to a rapid acidification process that will probably cause a massive die off.

The important point is that the changes in pH levels and CO2 levels in the oceans and the changes that are happening are not theoretical. These are scientifically observed facts.

Here's an excerpt from an article from last year on this topic:

"The ocean absorbs a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from human activities. Observations from the last 25 years show increasing acidity in surface seawater, following trends in increasing atmospheric CO2.

“Measured recent increases in ocean acidity follow exactly what is expected from basic chemistry; meanwhile, key ocean regions reveal decreases in shell weights and corals that are less able to build skeletal material,” explains Dr. James Orr, of the Marine Environment Laboratories (MEL-IAEA), Monaco and Chairman of the symposium’s International Scientific Committee.

“The Monaco Declaration is a clear statement from this expert group of marine scientists that ocean acidification is happening fast and highlights the critical importance of documenting associated changes to marine life ”, says Professor Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), one of the sponsors of the Symposium.

According to the experts, ocean acidification may render most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. It could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry."

 

[westwall]

Trolling Blunder,

I defy anyone to tell us (and more importantly prove it) that ocean acidification led or will lead to mass extinctions. It is an instant doctoral degree for anyone who can read the fossil record and determine what caused the three major mass extinctions. So far the most likely explanation is a asteroid strike, however what most non-scientists don't know is that it took about 5 million years for the dinosaurs to actually go extinct so that lends more credence to the theory that it was a one two punch between the asteroid and the little reported Deccan Plateau flood basalt eruptions in India 65 million years ago that caused the extinctions.

Nowhere does the climatology "science" deal with actual hard numbers. It is all bluff, and as we see with climategate, fraud. These imbeciles have set real science back decades because they want to make a whole pile of money. Yet another example of the real reason for all of the fraud going on. The fact that you can't or won't acknowledge the fact that these guys and their theory are wrong only proves that you are indeed a useful idiot or are set to profit from this crap as well.

IPCC?s Chairman Pachauri Conflicted, Says SPPI

You are such a simple minded retard. Just because they estimate the Siberian Traps produced a certain amount of CO2, you jump to the idiotic conclusion that anything less than that amount is nothing to worry about. LOL. Retard.

Well then asshole why don't you correct the numbers..... Can't can you moron....

yeah thats what happens when your agenda is fear and bullshit driven. The facts come out sooner or later....

YOUR article YOU posted made the claim that over a million years and 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere the oceans then became acidic....

No it didn't. You're just too retarded to understand what you read, gsock. The article did not say that it took a million years or that it took the release of over 13,000 gt of CO2 to create oceans acidic enough to drive marine species into extinction. The marine biologists are currently saying that even a little more CO2 dissolved in our oceans will be a disaster for many parts of the marine ecology. The article I posted is pointing out the fact that this process can, at some point, cause mass extinctions.

That same article YOU POSTED, then told us if we burn up all of our fossil fuels we have on the planet, we would put only 5000 gigatons into the atmosphere......

IF the theories they are pushing in that article are correct, this entire eruption process took over a million years and 8-9 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than we could ever possibly put up using fossil fuels. And whats worse we will be out of fossil fuels somewhere before the century ends.

Your whole rant here is based on your moronic inability to grasp reality. If someone tells you that eating a pound of cyanide will kill you, I'm sure you would conclude that eating a spoonful must therefore be safe. LOL. You are such a retard, gslack-jawed-idiot.

 

[westwall]

When mankind has been polluting for a few million years then you can begin to admonish us Blunder old boy. The article says it took millions of years for the CO2 to build up to the point that the oceans became unliveable. OK, we as the entire human race for all of our history of polluting this fine planet of ours has produced around....

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the amount of CO2 that that would have produced. And yes I was very careful with the amount of zero's I placed. In fact I was very conservative. In all probability you could probably add at least another 100 or so zero's.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that comparison is? Let me see volcanic eruptions around the world pumping around 1000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for oh heck lets be conservative, 5 million years as opposed to man creating a fraction of that amount for what 200 years? Yeah sure we are going to cause a mass extinction....yeah right!

The only thing that falls on its face is your lame ignorant attempt to argue science that you don't understand. You're a brainwashed denier cultist and so you obviously have no way to distinguish between true and false statements. The article is talking about a million year long period of massive volcanic eruptions (google 'Siberian Traps') that released as much as 43,000 billion tons of CO2. 1 million years of eruptions and 43,000 gt total carbon release is an average RATE of 0.043 gt per year. We humans are now adding about 28 billion tons (gigatons or gt) of CO2 every year to the atmosphere. Taking the ratio of these rates shows that we are releasing carbon at 650 times the rate of the Permian-ending volcanoes!!!
The article was about some recent research that points to a probable volcanic CO2 release cause for the end-Permian extinction but it does not claim to be definitive. An asteroid strike is still a possibility as a part of the mix that caused this event but your "beliefs" are just uninformed guesses and not at all significant. Save your 'beliefs' for your denier cult meetings where any wild ass nonsense will be accepted without question or need for evidence.

Yet we are not experiencing the dire consequences of that Permian era. You fail. You even had to admit that my alternate theory has credibility. Your just another alarmist faither.

Are you really that stupid? Do you really think it would all happen instantly? We are not experiencing the dire consequences of the Permian extinction - YET.

You're just another clueless and very ignorant denier cultist pushing the lies, misinformation and propaganda that you've been spoon fed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign. I post scientific information, evidence and research, like the last article, and you post your 'opinions' and 'beliefs' which aren't even really yours but just stuff you believe because your ideological puppet masters told you to 'believe' it. You are a duped tool of people with an economic self interest in the current fossil fuel energy sources.

 

[westwall]

As Scooby Doo would say Ruh Roh!!!! Astrophysicist you are not. Basic high school science dropout....give the man a ceeeeegar!

Explain to me how corals and similar life forms evolved in times of 20x higher atmospheric CO2?

What difference would atmospheric CO2 make? Corals live underwater. The water is not the atmosphere. Duh.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why don't you and spiderman tube have a little aside on that then. He seems confused. Then you two can come back here and counter how we have experienced much higher levels of CO2 in the water and the undersea creatures adapted.

Like most of the scientifically ignorant denier cultists, you fasten onto theoretical arguments that you don't have the background to understand and ignore the measured physical reality that the scientists are talking about. Ancient corals had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to changing ocean pH. It is quite possible that there was some massive die offs of coral at the times when CO2 levels were higher but the surviving coral adapted over long time frames. Modern corals are being subjected to a rapid acidification process that will probably cause a massive die off.

The important point is that the changes in pH levels and CO2 levels in the oceans and the changes that are happening are not theoretical. These are scientifically observed facts.

Here's an excerpt from an article from last year on this topic:

"The ocean absorbs a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from human activities. Observations from the last 25 years show increasing acidity in surface seawater, following trends in increasing atmospheric CO2.

“Measured recent increases in ocean acidity follow exactly what is expected from basic chemistry; meanwhile, key ocean regions reveal decreases in shell weights and corals that are less able to build skeletal material,” explains Dr. James Orr, of the Marine Environment Laboratories (MEL-IAEA), Monaco and Chairman of the symposium’s International Scientific Committee.

“The Monaco Declaration is a clear statement from this expert group of marine scientists that ocean acidification is happening fast and highlights the critical importance of documenting associated changes to marine life ”, says Professor Sybil Seitzinger, Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), one of the sponsors of the Symposium.

According to the experts, ocean acidification may render most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. It could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry."

Whoooooooopss.....I trump your BS study with a report from a noted IPCC scientist. Read on McDuff.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=db302137-13f6-40cc-8968-3c9aac133b16

LOL. You couldn't "trump" your way out of a wet paper bag, dufus. Dr. Everett worked for the IPCC a decade ago. His oddball opinions do not refute the current research. You fail again.

 

[Oddball]

“Ocean acidification is the new climate scare,” writes Dennis Ambler in a recent paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington D.C. non-profit research and education organization.

Ambler’s paper, Dying Shell Fish Larvae: The Story of a Scam, expands on the following points:

* Ocean acidification is the new climate scare and is being used as part of the “Climate Change” drive to force emissions legislation.

* Presentations to a Congressional hearing on “The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification” claimed ocean acidification is “real” and that seawater is “corrosive” to shell fish larvae. This is a deliberate distortion; indeed it is a lie.

* IPCC AR4 WGI states that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

Ocean Acidification is New Climate Scare, Says SPPI

 

[RollingThunder]

Yet we are not experiencing the dire consequences of that Permian era. You fail. You even had to admit that my alternate theory has credibility. Your just another alarmist faither.

Are you really that stupid? Do you really think it would all happen instantly? We are not experiencing the dire consequences of the Permian extinction - YET.

You're just another clueless and very ignorant denier cultist pushing the lies, misinformation and propaganda that you've been spoon fed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign. I post scientific information, evidence and research, like the last article, and you post your 'opinions' and 'beliefs' which aren't even really yours but just stuff you believe because your ideological puppet masters told you to 'believe' it. You are a duped tool of people with an economic self interest in the current fossil fuel energy sources.

When mankind has been polluting for a few million years then you can begin to admonish us Blunder old boy. The article says it took millions of years for the CO2 to build up to the point that the oceans became unliveable.

Wrong again, retard. The article did not say that at all. You're just too stupid to understand what you read.

OK, we as the entire human race for all of our history of polluting this fine planet of ours has produced around....

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the amount of CO2 that that would have produced. And yes I was very careful with the amount of zero's I placed. In fact I was very conservative. In all probability you could probably add at least another 100 or so zero's.

You're always wrong. It's your one talent, I would guess.

Mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40%, you ignorant dupe.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that comparison is? Let me see volcanic eruptions around the world pumping around 1000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for oh heck lets be conservative, 5 million years as opposed to man creating a fraction of that amount for what 200 years? Yeah sure we are going to cause a mass extinction....yeah right!

I do have a really good idea of just how ridiculous you and your posts are, numbnuts. As usual you just pull figures out of your ass that you don't understand to begin with. The article I posted talked about the Siberian Traps volcanoes producing about 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 over a million year period. It did not say that ocean acidification occurred only after all that time and that many gigatons. The scientists are noticing negative effects on the marine life just from the moderate amount of excess CO2 that mankind has added to the mix so far and we are continuing to add more so the problem is just going to get worse. There is a strong possibility of mass extinctions as we continued to stress the ecosystem with our idiotic practices of burning fossil carbon and deforestation.

 

[westwall]

Oh Blunder you old coot!

Once again resorting to felgercarb and personal insults because your "science" is a fraud. Ohhhhh (as my three year old would say) don't let it get you down.....you guys are probably going to get the BS Cap and Tax passed...till the next election gets rid of the idiots who put it in place.


I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

http://www.nov55.com/glody.html

And I particularly like this quote from it...."A turning point for some scientists occurred decades ago when some jackass said the oceans are in layers, and the surface layer is too thin to absorb much carbon dioxide. The claim is absurd, because the ocean surface is alkaline with no detectable increase in acidity, which means it is going to absorb carbon dioxide regardless of how thick the surface layer is said to be.

Propagandists are claiming that 33-50% of the CO2 which humans put into the air is absorbed by the oceans. There is no method of measuring the amount. Since the amount is contrived, it changes with convenience."


Have a better one old boy (or should I say young boy?)

Yet we are not experiencing the dire consequences of that Permian era. You fail. You even had to admit that my alternate theory has credibility. Your just another alarmist faither.

Are you really that stupid? Do you really think it would all happen instantly? We are not experiencing the dire consequences of the Permian extinction - YET.

You're just another clueless and very ignorant denier cultist pushing the lies, misinformation and propaganda that you've been spoon fed by the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign. I post scientific information, evidence and research, like the last article, and you post your 'opinions' and 'beliefs' which aren't even really yours but just stuff you believe because your ideological puppet masters told you to 'believe' it. You are a duped tool of people with an economic self interest in the current fossil fuel energy sources.

Wrong again, retard. The article did not say that at all. You're just too stupid to understand what you read.

OK, we as the entire human race for all of our history of polluting this fine planet of ours has produced around....

0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the amount of CO2 that that would have produced. And yes I was very careful with the amount of zero's I placed. In fact I was very conservative. In all probability you could probably add at least another 100 or so zero's.

You're always wrong. It's your one talent, I would guess.

Mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40%, you ignorant dupe.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that comparison is? Let me see volcanic eruptions around the world pumping around 1000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for oh heck lets be conservative, 5 million years as opposed to man creating a fraction of that amount for what 200 years? Yeah sure we are going to cause a mass extinction....yeah right!

I do have a really good idea of just how ridiculous you and your posts are, numbnuts. As usual you just pull figures out of your ass that you don't understand to begin with. The article I posted talked about the Siberian Traps volcanoes producing about 13,000 to 43,000 gigatons of CO2 over a million year period. It did not say that ocean acidification occurred only after all that time and that many gigatons. The scientists are noticing negative effects on the marine life just from the moderate amount of excess CO2 that mankind has added to the mix so far and we are continuing to add more so the problem is just going to get worse. There is a strong possibility of mass extinctions as we continued to stress the ecosystem with our idiotic practices of burning fossil carbon and deforestation.

 

[saveliberty]

I suggest you reduce your carbon footprint then rolling turd. Your use of the computer belies your commitment to the cause. Do you use anything in a plastic container? Mow your lawn? Eat shell fish? Tell us all about the sacrifices you make to keep the planet safe from CO2.

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh Blunder you old coot!

Oh Wastedwhelp, you timeless retard!

Once again resorting to felgercarb and personal insults because your "science" is a fraud.

Wrong again, like always, wurstwellkin. I don't "resort" to insulting you. I insult you because I like insulting pompous, ignorant retards who distort science for ideological reasons and this forum is an excellent place to do it. 'My' science, as you call it, is backed by the entire world scientific community so it is your pathetic pseudo-science that you copy off of denier cult blogs that is the "fraud" here but you are far too stupid to see that.

I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production.

Well of course you do.....because it is as idiotic as you are. An AGW denier cult climate blog done by a guy with no education or experience in climate science, just a MS in microbiology. Very typical denier cult pseudo-science set up to fool people as ignorant of science as you dimwitted deniers. I've been citing reports from the National Academy of Sciences and published papers from the foremost peer-reviewed science journals and you imagine in your cult-addled excuse for a mind that some random denier cult blog refutes the real science. LOLOL. You are very deluded as well as retarded.

 

[westwall]

Oooooohhh, Ow yet more insults?

Now Blunder you should know that were we to compare actual science your side would be declared the cult. The only evidence you have is that which has been created out of whole cloth, or manufactured by altering data to reflect the pre-decided upon result. That stopped being science when the Catholic Church abandoned that particular methodology...but you wouldn't know that as you probably have never cracked a real book.
But you can go on with your juvenile insults if it amuses you, simple people have simple tastes you know.

Timeless....I quite like that appelation! Thank you!

Oh Blunder you old coot!

Oh Wastedwhelp, you timeless retard!

Once again resorting to felgercarb and personal insults because your "science" is a fraud.

Wrong again, like always, wurstwellkin. I don't "resort" to insulting you. I insult you because I like insulting pompous, ignorant retards who distort science for ideological reasons and this forum is an excellent place to do it. 'My' science, as you call it, is backed by the entire world scientific community so it is your pathetic pseudo-science that you copy off of denier cult blogs that is the "fraud" here but you are far too stupid to see that.

I particularly like this site for the CO2/ocean question

Global Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide Production.

Well of course you do.....because it is as idiotic as you are. An AGW denier cult climate blog done by a guy with no education or experience in climate science, just a MS in microbiology. Very typical denier cult pseudo-science set up to fool people as ignorant of science as you dimwitted deniers. I've been citing reports from the National Academy of Sciences and published papers from the foremost peer-reviewed science journals and you imagine in your cult-addled excuse for a mind that some random denier cult blog refutes the real science. LOLOL. You are very deluded as well as retarded.