In summary...

[Boss]

LOL

So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on this planet. And it and every other Scientific Society, as well as all the National Academies of Science and the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The amount of land at the poles is a factor in the ice ages, but more important factors are the GHGs in the atmosphere and the Milankovic Cycles. There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

The two primary drivers of climate are the amount of energy the sun recieves from the sun, and the amount it retains. The latter is controlled by the Earth's albedo, and the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Land distribution, Milankovic Cycles, effect the distribution of the heat and cold on earth, but are not primary drivers.

CO2, being the primary GHG, not the strongest one, that is water vapor, but the primary one. CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All the physicists state that.

LIES!

Most people aren't climatologists or scientists. So whenever they read this impressive propaganda, they have no way of understanding whether it is right or wrong and many will assume, since lots of big fancy words and terminology is used, this must be correct. Even those who might be skeptical will go online to research and here's another two.. three.. four sources who seem to agree with the original propaganda. Suddenly, they get the emotive feeling that anything other than believing this is going to be thought of as dumb and they don't want to be dumb.... even though they actually are.

The Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. It has been MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler for extended periods of time. All-in-all, Mother Nature is a pretty resilient old gal. Man can do really careless shit... like dumping millions of gallons of oil into her oceans, killing off massive numbers of fish and wildlife and destroying wetlands... and within 10-20 years, old Mother Nature has cleaned up the mess and moved on. She's pretty busy because humans can be very careless. She's constantly cleaning up our messes and we should all strive to be more careful... but she also has to clean up messes we don't have a thing to do with. Like when a volcano erupts and pours millions of metric tons of sulfur and ash into the atmosphere... tens of thousands of times more damaging than anything man could ever manage on his own.

IF humans converted EVERY smokestack industry in the world over from actually producing products to the goal of simply pumping out as much pollution as they could muster daily.... and they operated these plants 24/7/365 for 10,000 years, it would result in almost as much damaging pollution as the Mt. St. Helen eruption, which was relatively mild in terms of volcanic eruptions. That;s an example of how little man's effect is on the climate of Earth. Mother Nature would laugh this effort off in a couple of decades.

The worst thing man has ever done to the environment is nuclear testing. Since the 1940s, we've unleashed untold amounts of radioactive fallout into our atmosphere. Now Ol' Lady Nature has a bit of a problem cleaning this stuff up because it has such a long half-life. And... it's seriously deadly to all forms of life. Still, the old broad keeps on working while we sleep and eventually, she cleans it all up. We really owe her a lot of credit for the amazing and miraculous work she does on our behalf.

Kind of stupid, there, old boy. First, the physicists are the people that measure things like the absorption spectra of CO2. Now if you have more than a grade school education in science, you would understand what that means.

As for your contention concerning the Mt. St. Helens eruption, you are totally full of shit. And, apparently, proud of it, or you would have researched that before sticking your foot into it.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Apparently you can't read very well because I never even mentioned volcanic CO2 emissions. But if you want to debate natural emissions of CO2, let's talk about the oceans and vegetation... they generate tons more natural CO2 than humans every day. In fact, oceans produce 16 times more than humans. Those evil capitalist OCEANS!

CO2 is one of the most abundant compounds on Earth and indeed, the universe. While plants and oceans do emit a lot of it, they also absorb a lot of it. It's a natural process happening all the time. Man's contribution is minuscule in comparison. To the degree we are affecting a change in the Earth's natural warming or cooling cycle, it's inconsequential and totally doesn't justify this "sky is falling" nonsense of Warmers. Nature handles it... we're not going to melt all the ice! We couldn't do that if we WANTED to.

Even this Al Gore nonsense about how we're going to see coastal flooding soon if we don't change our ways.... it's laughable! Far before we'd ever see any tangible rise in coastal ocean levels, the natural convection of the oceans would cease to function due to all the cooling from melting ice and everything in the ocean would die. We'd have much bigger problems than flooding coast lines. It's just ridiculous nonsense heaped on top of more ridiculous nonsense.

Look it... If you don't want us to burn fossil fuels, develop some alternative cost-effective form of energy! Because, right now, that's how we fuel the industrialized world and I don't think most of us want to go back to living in caves.

 

[Old Rocks]

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland

What matters for Earth ice?

Land near a Pole.

What does CO2 have to do with that?

NOTHING

CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate

Dana L. Royer, Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, [email protected]

Robert A. Berner, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA

Isabel P. Montañez, Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA Neil J. Tabor, Department of Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA

David J. Beerling, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

ABSTRACT Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale.

Full text available at the link

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL

So what we have here is a fruit loopy anonymous poster on a message board claiming that he knows more than all the scientists on this planet. As for #'s 1 and two;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Institute of Physics is the largest Scientific Society on this planet. And it and every other Scientific Society, as well as all the National Academies of Science and the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The amount of land at the poles is a factor in the ice ages, but more important factors are the GHGs in the atmosphere and the Milankovic Cycles. There have been vast geological periods when there was land covering the South Pole, and there was no continental ice sheets there.

The two primary drivers of climate are the amount of energy the sun recieves from the sun, and the amount it retains. The latter is controlled by the Earth's albedo, and the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Land distribution, Milankovic Cycles, effect the distribution of the heat and cold on earth, but are not primary drivers.

CO2, being the primary GHG, not the strongest one, that is water vapor, but the primary one. CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. All the physicists state that.

LIES!

Most people aren't climatologists or scientists. So whenever they read this impressive propaganda, they have no way of understanding whether it is right or wrong and many will assume, since lots of big fancy words and terminology is used, this must be correct. Even those who might be skeptical will go online to research and here's another two.. three.. four sources who seem to agree with the original propaganda. Suddenly, they get the emotive feeling that anything other than believing this is going to be thought of as dumb and they don't want to be dumb.... even though they actually are.

The Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. It has been MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler for extended periods of time. All-in-all, Mother Nature is a pretty resilient old gal. Man can do really careless shit... like dumping millions of gallons of oil into her oceans, killing off massive numbers of fish and wildlife and destroying wetlands... and within 10-20 years, old Mother Nature has cleaned up the mess and moved on. She's pretty busy because humans can be very careless. She's constantly cleaning up our messes and we should all strive to be more careful... but she also has to clean up messes we don't have a thing to do with. Like when a volcano erupts and pours millions of metric tons of sulfur and ash into the atmosphere... tens of thousands of times more damaging than anything man could ever manage on his own.

IF humans converted EVERY smokestack industry in the world over from actually producing products to the goal of simply pumping out as much pollution as they could muster daily.... and they operated these plants 24/7/365 for 10,000 years, it would result in almost as much damaging pollution as the Mt. St. Helen eruption, which was relatively mild in terms of volcanic eruptions. That;s an example of how little man's effect is on the climate of Earth. Mother Nature would laugh this effort off in a couple of decades.

The worst thing man has ever done to the environment is nuclear testing. Since the 1940s, we've unleashed untold amounts of radioactive fallout into our atmosphere. Now Ol' Lady Nature has a bit of a problem cleaning this stuff up because it has such a long half-life. And... it's seriously deadly to all forms of life. Still, the old broad keeps on working while we sleep and eventually, she cleans it all up. We really owe her a lot of credit for the amazing and miraculous work she does on our behalf.

Kind of stupid, there, old boy. First, the physicists are the people that measure things like the absorption spectra of CO2. Now if you have more than a grade school education in science, you would understand what that means.

As for your contention concerning the Mt. St. Helens eruption, you are totally full of shit. And, apparently, proud of it, or you would have researched that before sticking your foot into it.

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Apparently you can't read very well because I never even mentioned volcanic CO2 emissions. But if you want to debate natural emissions of CO2, let's talk about the oceans and vegetation... they generate tons more natural CO2 than humans every day. In fact, oceans produce 16 times more than humans. Those evil capitalist OCEANS!

CO2 is one of the most abundant compounds on Earth and indeed, the universe. While plants and oceans do emit a lot of it, they also absorb a lot of it. It's a natural process happening all the time. Man's contribution is minuscule in comparison. To the degree we are affecting a change in the Earth's natural warming or cooling cycle, it's inconsequential and totally doesn't justify this "sky is falling" nonsense of Warmers. Nature handles it... we're not going to melt all the ice! We couldn't do that if we WANTED to.

Even this Al Gore nonsense about how we're going to see coastal flooding soon if we don't change our ways.... it's laughable! Far before we'd ever see any tangible rise in coastal ocean levels, the natural convection of the oceans would cease to function due to all the cooling from melting ice and everything in the ocean would die. We'd have much bigger problems than flooding coast lines. It's just ridiculous nonsense heaped on top of more ridiculous nonsense.

Look it... If you don't want us to burn fossil fuels, develop some alternative cost-effective form of energy! Because, right now, that's how we fuel the industrialized world and I don't think most of us want to go back to living in caves.

Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been obsorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.



National Geographic News,


The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.

But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.

 

[LaDexter]

90% of Earth ice on land mass Antarctica
7% of Earth ice on land mass Greenland

What matters for Earth ice?

Land near a Pole.

What does CO2 have to do with that?

NOTHING

CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate

Dana L. Royer, Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, [email protected]

Robert A. Berner, Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA

Isabel P. Montañez, Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA Neil J. Tabor, Department of Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA

David J. Beerling, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

ABSTRACT Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale.

Full text available at the link

 

[LaDexter]

As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.

Who cares?

CO2 doesn't do anything. We could increase it 10 fold today and it still wouldn't warm anything...

 

[Old Rocks]

A real scientist, not an anonymous internet troll

 

[Boss]

Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been obsorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.



National Geographic News,


The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.

But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.

Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance.

No they don't. Some of what the oceans absorb reacts with limestone and calcium to help form coral reefs. Many varieties of algae thrive on carbon dioxide. So, much of what the oceans absorb is used. There are also thermal vents in the ocean releasing tons of pure carbon dioxide.

Scientists don't know what actual effects extra carbon dioxide is having on sea life. Your linked article is full of SPECULATIONS.... Scientists think... may cause... might be... could possibly... These are not established FACTS. They are OPINIONS! You simply read this stuff and ASSUME that "may cause" means it DOES cause. You read "scientists think" and you assume scientists have proven... that's just not the case. They don't KNOW!

The point was not to argue what effect CO2 has or doesn't have on oceans... it was to illustrate there are many natural sources of carbon dioxide. And contrary to all your little propaganda pieces saying CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas... the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The greenhouse effect is important. If we didn't have a greenhouse effect, you and I would not exist, nor would any carbon-based life form on this planet. It's essential to life... as is carbon dioxide. What do you think plants use to produce energy?

Do you consider botanists to be scientists? I mean, if we're going to consider Bill Nye, we ought to consider the world's leading botanists, right? Well botanists say that up until about 200 years ago, the trees and plants were starving for CO2. They can tell this by the tree rings. Increased CO2 levels actually help plants and forests to grow and thrive. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plant a fucking tree!

 

[Crick]

Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance. However, since we started burning fossil fuel, the oceans have been absorbing more they have been emitting, much to the detriment of sea life.

The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.

But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

As you can see, now the oceans are absorbing more than they are emitting.

Yes, the oceans emit and absorb CO2, in balance.

No they don't. Some of what the oceans absorb reacts with limestone and calcium to help form coral reefs. Many varieties of algae thrive on carbon dioxide. So, much of what the oceans absorb is used. There are also thermal vents in the ocean releasing tons of pure carbon dioxide.

I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs. Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans). The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.

Scientists don't know what actual effects extra carbon dioxide is having on sea life.

It is a widely studied issue. There are thousands of studies on the topic. We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.

Your linked article is full of SPECULATIONS.... Scientists think... may cause... might be... could possibly... These are not established FACTS. They are OPINIONS! You simply read this stuff and ASSUME that "may cause" means it DOES cause. You read "scientists think" and you assume scientists have proven... that's just not the case. They don't KNOW!

And another failure of science education. Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities. There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science.

The point was not to argue what effect CO2 has or doesn't have on oceans... it was to illustrate there are many natural sources of carbon dioxide. And contrary to all your little propaganda pieces saying CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas... the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor.

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide.

The greenhouse effect is important. If we didn't have a greenhouse effect, you and I would not exist, nor would any carbon-based life form on this planet. It's essential to life... as is carbon dioxide. What do you think plants use to produce energy?

Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming. They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere. And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot. The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.

Do you consider botanists to be scientists? I mean, if we're going to consider Bill Nye, we ought to consider the world's leading botanists, right? Well botanists say that up until about 200 years ago, the trees and plants were starving for CO2. They can tell this by the tree rings. Increased CO2 levels actually help plants and forests to grow and thrive. If you want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, plant a fucking tree!

Plant life was not "starving" for CO2. CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period. I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2. The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.

So, what point were you trying to make?

 

[Boss]

I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs. Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans). The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.

Actually, I did pretty good in chemistry. For instance, I know where calcium carbonate comes from and it wouldn't be possible without carbon dioxide.

It is a widely studied issue. There are thousands of studies on the topic. We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.

Oh, indeed! We send out billions of tax dollars every year for research scientists to study this and that... they conclude this may cause that... that may result in this... the sky might be falling... the world may be ending... we think this could happen, we believe that might be the cause... by the way, when is our next grant check coming?

And another failure of science education. Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities. There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science.

Well then you should stop running around proclaiming things as if they are known facts when they're not. You can't have this both ways... you can't run around saying science has proven this or that and then say science doesn't prove things.

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide.

Bullshit. The median global temps haven't increased in 18 years... why do you think they stopped calling it "global warming" and started using "climate change" instead? They are now beginning to think the Earth is in a cooling cycle. Sunspot activity is at a 8,000-year high. There is much more going on than man-made carbon dioxide, one of the most abundant compounds on the planet and in the universe.

Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming. They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere. And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot. The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.

Profound idiocy on display. No, life couldn't exist without the greenhouse effect. If it cannot develop it cannot exist, dummy. Plants produce energy all the time, it's called photosynthesis. How the hell do think plants grow? What are you, in the third grade?

Plant life was not "starving" for CO2. CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period. I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2. The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Sorry, don't know what to tell ya... here's some studies on the subject:
Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past - Gerhart - 2010 - New Phytologist - Wiley Online Library

Here's another interesting article:
https://www.cfact.org/pdf/CO2-TheGasOfLife.pdf

The point is this... All of you Climate Change Warriors seem to think you know for certain what is a proper level of CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't know! All through earth's history the amount of CO2 has changed radically. Following the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 10-13,000 years ago, the CO2 levels dropped to under 150 ppm. This actually threatened the evolution of plant life and thousands of species were lost. Botanists say, it wasn't until around the time of the Industrial Revolution that CO2 levels had began to rebound and provide abundant nutrition for plants again.

Go to any commercial greenhouse in America and you will find elaborate systems to pump CO2 into the houses to encourage healthy growth. What you get from increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more robust plant life and forests. The benefits should be apparent in our need to be able to feed an ever-growing global population. If there is any kind of amplification of the greenhouse effect, it is inconsequential to the other things in nature which also effect global temps. Our planet has been much warmer and much cooler... and there was no industrialization around... in some cases, there weren't even humans around.

 

[Crick]

I see you flunked chemistry. CO2 does not react with limestone and calcium to form coral reefs. Coral reefs are formed by coral polyps from the aragonite (the most common form of calcium carbonate found in the world's oceans). The addition of dissolved CO2 to the ocean increases its acidity (lowers its pH) making it more difficult for polyps to force the precipitation of aragonite.

Actually, I did pretty good in chemistry. For instance, I know where calcium carbonate comes from and it wouldn't be possible without carbon dioxide.

CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate. The ionic solution of aragonite which all CaCO3-fixing organisms make use of comes almost entirely from weathering on land and enters the oceans through rivers and streams.

It is a widely studied issue. There are thousands of studies on the topic. We certainly don't know the effect that rising pH will have on every organism under the seas, but we know quite a bit.

Oh, indeed! We send out billions of tax dollars every year for research scientists to study this and that... they conclude this may cause that... that may result in this... the sky might be falling... the world may be ending... we think this could happen, we believe that might be the cause... by the way, when is our next grant check coming?

And another failure of science education. Natural science ALWAYS deals in possibilities, in probabilities. There ARE NO PROOFS in natural science.

Well then you should stop running around proclaiming things as if they are known facts when they're not. You can't have this both ways... you can't run around saying science has proven this or that and then say science doesn't prove things.

Guess what Boss. I don't.

The primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years is increased carbon dioxide.

Bullshit. The median global temps haven't increased in 18 years... why do you think they stopped calling it "global warming" and started using "climate change" instead? They are now beginning to think the Earth is in a cooling cycle. Sunspot activity is at a 8,000-year high. There is much more going on than man-made carbon dioxide, one of the most abundant compounds on the planet and in the universe.

Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:

From the annual numbers, global temperatures have risen approximately 0.2C over the last 18 years. The 5-yr running average has risen about half that in the last 18.

Some form of life could exist without greenhouse warming. They likely would not develop were there no atmosphere. And plants do not produce energy till they die and rot. The consume energy from the sun to create sugars from CO2 and water.

Profound idiocy on display. No, life couldn't exist without the greenhouse effect. If it cannot develop it cannot exist, dummy.

Removing the greenhouse effect would drop the planet's temperature to -18C. Do you think it completely impossible for life to develop at that temperature? I don't.

Plants produce energy all the time, it's called photosynthesis. How the hell do think plants grow? What are you, in the third grade?

I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.

Plant life was not "starving" for CO2. CO2 has not been at current levels for well over a million years. Plant life was sufficient to allow homo sapiens and a hundred thousand other species to thrive during all that period. I agree that planting a tree will help lower CO2. The standard line from the IPCC is that CO2 has increased due to human combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Sorry, don't know what to tell ya... here's some studies on the subject:
Plant responses to low [CO2] of the past - Gerhart - 2010 - New Phytologist - Wiley Online Library

I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving". There was more than enough time for the Earth's flora to adapt to the levels present here for the past several million years. There was no shortage of plant species or individual plants. Before humans arose virtually the entire planet's continents inside N and S 60 were covered in a solid forest/jungle. So what is it you mean when you say they were "starving" for CO2?

The point is this... All of you Climate Change Warriors seem to think you know for certain what is a proper level of CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't know! All through earth's history the amount of CO2 has changed radically. Following the Late Glacial Maximum (LGM) about 10-13,000 years ago [did you perhaps mean the "LAST glacial maximum, 18 - 20,0000 years ago?], the CO2 levels dropped to under 150 ppm. This actually threatened the evolution of plant life and thousands of species were lost. Botanists say, it wasn't until around the time of the Industrial Revolution that CO2 levels had began to rebound and provide abundant nutrition for plants again.

I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.

Go to any commercial greenhouse in America and you will find elaborate systems to pump CO2 into the houses to encourage healthy growth. What you get from increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more robust plant life and forests. The benefits should be apparent in our need to be able to feed an ever-growing global population. If there is any kind of amplification of the greenhouse effect, it is inconsequential to the other things in nature which also effect global temps. Our planet has been much warmer and much cooler... and there was no industrialization around... in some cases, there weren't even humans around.

I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.

 

[Crick]

From your linked study

Summary
During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previous glacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among the lowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are more than twice those of the LGM and 45% higher than pre-industrial concentrations. Since CO2is the carbon source for photosynthesis, lower carbon availability during glacial periods likely had a major impact on plant productivity and evolution. From the studies highlighted here, it is clear that the influence of low [CO2] transcends several scales, ranging from physiological effects on individual plants to changes in ecosystem functioning, and may have even influenced the development of early human cultures (via the timing of agriculture). Through low-[CO2] studies, we have determined a baseline for plant response to minimal [CO2] that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Moreover, an increased understanding of plant responses to low [CO2] contributes to our knowledge of how natural global change factors in the past may continue to influence plant responses to future anthropogenic changes. Future work, however, should focus more on the evolutionary responses of plants to changing [CO2] in order to account for the potentially large effects of genetic change.

Prior to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were at 280 pm, over 50% higher than during the glacial maximums discussed in your article.

 

[Boss]

CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.

Calcium carbonate REQUIRES carbon dioxide.

Guess what Boss. I don't.

Yes, you ALL do... you'll do it before you finish this post!

Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:

To what extent we are contributing to any warming it is minor. I linked the article reporting no increase in 18 years. That's why your activists stopped calling it "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change" instead. Back in the 70s it was "the impending Ice Age!" It always seems to require the same government solutions of confiscating wealth and destroying capitalism.

I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.

How can they USE energy if they don't PRODUCE it?

I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving".

I'm just repeating what botanists have said. CO2 levels finally reached a point at about the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to where plants again thrived. Prior to that, they were not getting enough CO2... aka: starving!

I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.

These things change all the time, with or without human activity. Your alarmist rhetoric presupposes we know the optimal CO2 rate and we've exceeded it. I submit you don't know this. Temperatures on the planet have been changing dramatically for eons. Long before humans ever were in the picture, we had great warming and cooling periods. There is nothing we can do about that.

I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.

See... I told you that you would do this before you finished the thread. There is no proven science to support this nonsense. It's a speculation.

 

[Crick]

CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.

Calcium carbonate REQUIRES carbon dioxide.

One problem dude. Dissolving CO2 in water increases calcium carbonate's solubility. Adding CO2 will not produce more CaCO3 - it will make certain that none of it comes out of solution.

Guess what Boss. I don't.[state that science proves things]

Yes, you ALL do... you'll do it before you finish this post!

No, I won't.

Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:

To what extent we are contributing to any warming it is minor.

We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.

I linked the article reporting no increase in 18 years. That's why your activists stopped calling it "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change" instead. Back in the 70s it was "the impending Ice Age!" It always seems to require the same government solutions of confiscating wealth and destroying capitalism.

Deniers stopped using these arguments years ago. I still call global warming 'global warming'. So does everyone else. If folks are talking about climate change, they'll say 'climate change'. There is no significance there and you look quite foolish bringing that dead horse to bear. What is required to solve this issue is to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions. The solutions to that include conservation and alternative energy sources. If you want to see some wealth move around, just do nothing. The cost of dealing with the consequences will be in the tens of trillions of dollars at least.

I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.

How can they USE energy if they don't PRODUCE it?

Are you really this dense?

From Wikipedia's article on Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis is a process used by plants and other organisms to convert light energy into chemical energy that can later be released to fuel the organisms' activities (energy transformation). This chemical energy is stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water – hence the name photosynthesis, from the Greek φῶς, phōs, "light", and σύνθεσις, synthesis, "putting together".[1][2][3] In most cases, oxygen is also released as a waste product. Most plants, most algae, and cyanobacteria perform photosynthesis; such organisms are called photoautotrophs. Photosynthesis is largely responsible for producing and maintaining the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere, and supplies all of the organic compounds and most of the energy necessary for life on Earth.[4]

Although photosynthesis is performed differently by different species, the process always begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called reaction centres that contain green chlorophyll pigments. In plants, these proteins are held inside organelles called chloroplasts, which are most abundant in leaf cells, while in bacteria they are embedded in the plasma membrane. In these light-dependent reactions, some energy is used to stripelectrons from suitable substances, such as water, producing oxygen gas. The hydrogen freed by the splitting of water is used in the creation of two further compounds that act as an immediate energy storage means: reducednicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the "energy currency" of cells.

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, long-term energy storage in the form of sugars is produced by a subsequent sequence of light-independent reactions called the Calvin cycle; some bacteria use different mechanisms, such as the reverse Krebs cycle, to achieve the same end. In the Calvin cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide is incorporated into already existing organic carbon compounds, such as ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP).[5] Using the ATP and NADPH produced by the light-dependent reactions, the resulting compounds are then reduced and removed to form further carbohydrates, such as glucose.

The first photosynthetic organisms probably evolved early in the evolutionary history of life and most likely used reducing agents such as hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide, rather than water, as sources of electrons.[6]Cyanobacteria appeared later; the excess oxygen they produced contributed directly to the oxygenation of the Earth,[7] which rendered the evolution of complex life possible. Today, the average rate of energy capture by photosynthesis globally is approximately 130 terawatts,[8][9][10] which is about three times the current power consumption of human civilization.[11] Photosynthetic organisms also convert around 100–115 thousand million metric

If you don't understand the basic difference between exothermic and endothermic reactions, I suggest you need a basic science course before entering this conversation again.

I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving".

I'm just repeating what botanists have said. CO2 levels finally reached a point at about the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to where plants again thrived. Prior to that, they were not getting enough CO2... aka: starving!

The word appears twice in your linked article. Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: "As a whole, these studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation." They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.

I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.

These things change all the time, with or without human activity.

Uh... yeah....

Homosapiens appeared as a species at the halfway point in this graph. The current levels of CO2 have grossly exceeded anything that's occurred since that point in time.

Your alarmist rhetoric presupposes we know the optimal CO2 rate and we've exceeded it.

Then you haven't been listening. What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping. Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well. But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place. If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.

I submit you don't know this.

Good for you. That's probably why we've said no such thing.

Temperatures on the planet have been changing dramatically for eons. Long before humans ever were in the picture, we had great warming and cooling periods. There is nothing we can do about that.

The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it. And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet. Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.

I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.

See... I told you that you would do this before you finished the thread. There is no proven science to support this nonsense. It's a speculation.

You're the only one to use the word "proven" here. Science does lots of speculation. But speculations are not presented as conclusions. Science takes a hypothesis, based on known principles and intended to explain an observation and tests it by experimentation, by testing predictions and, in general, by attempting to falsify it. If it survives all that, it becomes a theory. If lots of scientists accept it - as has happened with the theory of anthropogenic global warming - it becomes a widely accepted theory.

When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 dissolved in the oceans does not produce calcium carbonate.

Calcium carbonate REQUIRES carbon dioxide.

Guess what Boss. I don't.

Yes, you ALL do... you'll do it before you finish this post!

Of course there are other things going on. There always are. That doesn't mean we aren't continuing to warm from human CO2 emissions. And if you really think it hasn't warmed in 18 years, you're woefully out of touch. Here's what it's been doing:

To what extent we are contributing to any warming it is minor. I linked the article reporting no increase in 18 years. That's why your activists stopped calling it "Global Warming" and started talking about "Climate Change" instead. Back in the 70s it was "the impending Ice Age!" It always seems to require the same government solutions of confiscating wealth and destroying capitalism.

I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering. Photosynthesis is not a process that produces energy. It is one that USES energy. You know... sunlight? How many green plants do you know that do well in the dark.

How can they USE energy if they don't PRODUCE it?

I am certainly not arguing that CO2 wasn't lower in the past and that plants need CO2. I am disagreeing with your term "starving".

I'm just repeating what botanists have said. CO2 levels finally reached a point at about the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to where plants again thrived. Prior to that, they were not getting enough CO2... aka: starving!

I have NEVER claimed to know what is a "proper" level of CO2 in our atmosphere. Our warnings about the situation are not over absolute levels of CO2 or absolute temperatures they will produce. They concern the RATE at which temperatures (and the indirect effects of sea level and ocean pH) are changing.

These things change all the time, with or without human activity. Your alarmist rhetoric presupposes we know the optimal CO2 rate and we've exceeded it. I submit you don't know this. Temperatures on the planet have been changing dramatically for eons. Long before humans ever were in the picture, we had great warming and cooling periods. There is nothing we can do about that.

I'm sorry, but it is NOT inconsequential. The harm global warming is doing will vastly overwhelm any benefits from increased plant growth.

See... I told you that you would do this before you finished the thread. There is no proven science to support this nonsense. It's a speculation.

LOL Boss, you are a funny one. CO2 levels were above 180 ppm for the times you stated. And 13,000 years ago, there were rhinoceri and many other large mammals in North America. Most of which were plant eaters. To sustain that level of large animals, there had to be a lot of plant life. During that period, the Younger Dryas occurred, a very rapid change in climate. A drop of at least 5 C going in, in a decade to a century, and then a thousand years later, an increase of the same magnitude. During those periods of rapid change, about 45 of the 54 species of large mammals became extinct or extirpated in North America. Most of these mammals had existed there for the whole of the cycles of the present ice age. There had never been a change that rapid in the prior cycles.

We are looking at a change potentially that large this century. And certainly that large or larger by 2200.

 

[Boss]

No, I won't.

Yes, you did... you continue to do it...

We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.

No, we don't. We have some studies which SUGGEST otherwise. See what you are doing here?

Are you really this dense?

I asked you how plants can use energy if they can't produce energy? You gave me the wiki page on photosynthesis, which I am very well familiar with. It's the process of plants producing energy from sunlight and CO2. That energy is used for the plant to sustain and carry on the process of living, as all life forms do.

The word appears twice in your linked article. Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: "As a whole, these studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation." They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.

It's precisely what it says.

Then you haven't been listening. What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping. Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well. But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place. If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?

The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it. And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet. Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.

No, we really can't do anything about it. The primary thing man does to create CO2 is burn fossil fuels... we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels. The next thing we do to create CO2 is breathe... not gonna stop breathing. The next thing we do to create CO2 is make concrete... we're not going to stop making concrete. Even if we curtail some of these things it's going to mean people starve and die as a result. But let's say we do manage to keep from producing some CO2... one major natural disaster like an underwater earthquake hitting a thermal vent and it wipes out all our conservation efforts for 10 years in a matter of hours. We can't control Mother Nature... we can't even control hurricanes, floods, droughts or blizzards.

You're the only one to use the word "proven" here. Science does lots of speculation. But speculations are not presented as conclusions.

Yet I see you presenting conclusions here left and right.
"We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise" ~YOU (circa a few seconds ago)

When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself.

I'm educated buddy! I keep having to explain how science works to you... you keep on appealing to popularity and thinking because a bunch of scientists THINK something it must apparently be true.

 

[Boss]

LOL Boss, you are a funny one. CO2 levels were above 180 ppm for the times you stated. And 13,000 years ago, there were rhinoceri and many other large mammals in North America. Most of which were plant eaters. To sustain that level of large animals, there had to be a lot of plant life. During that period, the Younger Dryas occurred, a very rapid change in climate. A drop of at least 5 C going in, in a decade to a century, and then a thousand years later, an increase of the same magnitude. During those periods of rapid change, about 45 of the 54 species of large mammals became extinct or extirpated in North America. Most of these mammals had existed there for the whole of the cycles of the present ice age. There had never been a change that rapid in the prior cycles.

We are looking at a change potentially that large this century. And certainly that large or larger by 2200.

I've just repeated what botanists say about plants and CO2 levels. I never claimed plants were almost extinct or anything like that. I'm happy for you to point out the dramatic shifts in global temperature many years before man was burning fossil fuels and had industrialization. That should be evidence the planet knows how to ultimately survive regardless of what happens.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boss

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?

.............................................................................................................................................

No, what I see is extreme ignorance on your part. There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

And by 1981, the leading atmospheric physicist of that time, Dr. James Hansen, made this prediction;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

The whole article is linked to at that site. And it did miss the opening of the Northwest Passage. The paper predicted that opening toward the end of the 21st century, and it opened for the first time in 2007.

 

[Crick]

We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise.

No, we don't. We have some studies which SUGGEST otherwise. See what you are doing here?

So, you reject all science? That IS what you're saying. We have thousands of studies which show that the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse warming from increasing levels of CO2 is the primary cause. These studies do not "suggest" that is what's happening. Those are their conclusions. Your comments here show an abysmal comprehension of basic science and the scientific method.

I asked you how plants can use energy if they can't produce energy? You gave me the wiki page on photosynthesis, which I am very well familiar with. It's the process of plants producing energy from sunlight and CO2. That energy is used for the plant to sustain and carry on the process of living, as all life forms do.

Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars. Without sunlight, it does not take place. Plants do not CREATE energy. You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy. Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic

The word appears twice in your linked article. Once when scientists put plants in a sealed chamber and artificially lowered CO2 levels and again in a discussion of the specific atmospheric CO2 levels presents during glaciation periods: "As a whole, these studies support the notion that trees were potentially carbon-starved during low-[CO2] periods because of glacial ci values that are, for the most part, unprecedented in modern vegetation." They do NOT state that plants were "starved" of CO2 during interglacial periods prior to the Industrial Revolution.

It's precisely what it says.

Which is not what you said it says. CO2 levels got to those "starvation" points at the height of glaciation, not just prior to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution did not - as you suggest - save the plant kingdom.

Then you haven't been listening. What we're alarmed about is the change in level - the rate at which temperatures are increasing, at which sea levels are rising and ocean pH is dropping. Such changes have all happened before in the past, and much larger ones as well. But they took hundreds of thousands of years, sometimes millions of years, to take place. If such were the case today we would have no issue with any of it.

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere.

Ahh... Marxists. Global warming is a communist plot. I see I have been wasting my time here.

In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?

Yes. Your ignorance.

The current change is being caused by human activities so, quite obviously, it has never happened before and we CAN do something about it. And try to see the sense of concerning yourself with conditions over the last 200,000 years - conditions since the appearance of homo sapiens - rather than the entire history of the planet. Earth was a ball of molten rock at one point. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care if it were to become one once again.

No, we really can't do anything about it. The primary thing man does to create CO2 is burn fossil fuels... we're not going to stop burning fossil fuels.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the process is already underway. Not as fast as we ought to be switching, but underway.

The next thing we do to create CO2 is breathe... not gonna stop breathing.

No CO2 is added to the atmosphere by our breathing or that of any other animal. Respiration is a CYCLE between plants and animals.

The next thing we do to create CO2 is make concrete... we're not going to stop making concrete.

The largest producers of CO2 are the combustion of fossil fuels to make energy and power our motor vehicles. The former are being addressed by alternative energy sources (wind, thermal solar, solar PV, hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, OTEC, etc); the latter with electric and, eventually, fuel cell automobiles. As you note, that is followed by the manufacture of concrete. The centralization of that source makes it amenable to efforts at sequestration, but little has happened on that front as of yet.

Even if we curtail some of these things

No if. We are curtailing these things.

it's going to mean people starve and die as a result.

No, they are not. We are taking these actions to PREVENT people from starving and dying.

But let's say we do manage to keep from producing some CO2... one major natural disaster like an underwater earthquake hitting a thermal vent and it wipes out all our conservation efforts for 10 years in a matter of hours.

If you think that's the case I'm surprised you didn't claim volcanoes overwhelmed all human CO2 production.

We can't control Mother Nature... we can't even control hurricanes, floods, droughts or blizzards.

Over the long term we have clearly shown that we can affect the "natural" conditions on the Earth.

You're the only one to use the word "proven" here. Science does lots of speculation. But speculations are not presented as conclusions.

Yet I see you presenting conclusions here left and right.
"We have mountains of evidence that says otherwise" ~YOU (circa a few seconds ago)

When you say that all those "may"s and "might"s make science all speculation, the only thing shown is that you don't understand the very basics of the scientific method. I suggest you educate yourself.

I'm educated buddy!

You've not shown it here.

I keep having to explain how science works to you...

You have explained nothing to me. You have clearly announced your ignorance on chemistry, energy and the scientific method.

you keep on appealing to popularity and thinking because a bunch of scientists THINK something it must apparently be true.

I will let your comments speak for themselves.

 

[Boss]

Boss

Sure you would. Marxists would still want to shake down Capitalists, so something HAS to be wrong somewhere. In the 70s, they ran around with their charts and graphs claiming "scientific consensus" we were heading for another Ice Age and we needed more government. Turns out we weren't heading for another Ice Age. Then in the 90s, they said the Earth was warming and we needed more government. Turns out the Earth wasn't warming. Now, they say we have "Climate Change" and we need more government. You see the common thread there?

.............................................................................................................................................

No, what I see is extreme ignorance on your part. There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus
In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…

And by 1981, the leading atmospheric physicist of that time, Dr. James Hansen, made this prediction;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

The whole article is linked to at that site. And it did miss the opening of the Northwest Passage. The paper predicted that opening toward the end of the 21st century, and it opened for the first time in 2007.

There was no consensus in the 1970's concerning global cooling...A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total).

Oh, so it was just like the "97% of scientists consensus" lie being promoted today about AGW?

I was around in the 70s, I remember how it was promoted... man was churning out all this smog and pollution and it threatened to block out the sun and bring on the next ice age if we didn't ACT! Man was driving down global temps and Government needed to step in! That's how we got the EPA.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

This article exposes the FRAUD of the "97 percent consensus" claims. It's actually more like 0.3%

 

[Boss]

Photosynthesis REQUIRES the energy input of sunlight to convert CO2 and water to sugars. Without sunlight, it does not take place. Plants do not CREATE energy. You can consider it a conversion process if you like: solar energy into chemical energy, but they are producing food, not energy. Again, you comments indicate some educational shortcomings on this general topic

This is now becoming a semantics argument. "Food" is energy! YES... plants create energy (food) from sunlight and CO2. Now this does not mean the laws of conservation are broken... energy can't be created or destroyed... but plants convert energy just like all living things convert energy. And that is what we're talking about.

Which is not what you said it says. CO2 levels got to those "starvation" points at the height of glaciation, not just prior to the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution did not - as you suggest - save the plant kingdom.

I didn't say it saved the plant kingdom. I'm growing tired of having to correct your twisting and pretzeling of things I say into straw men you can torch. I said that botanists say, up until about 200 years ago, plants were starving for CO2. I'm not a botanist, I don't study plants, I deffer to their expertise. I'm merely repeating what I've read. If you have some argument you should take that up with them.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the process is already underway. Not as fast as we ought to be switching, but underway.

Not really. I doubt we've reduced our usage of fossil fuels by more than a few percent. Certain efforts, such as Ethanol, actually use more fossil fuel than they save. It will be many, many years before we see man eliminate his need for fossil fuels. It's not going to happen in our lifetime.

No, they are not. We are taking these actions to PREVENT people from starving and dying.

But that's not the effect of implementing government mandates and restrictions on production.

So, you reject all science? That IS what you're saying. We have thousands of studies which show that the planet has been warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse warming from increasing levels of CO2 is the primary cause. These studies do not "suggest" that is what's happening. Those are their conclusions.

So here, you try to talk from both sides of your mouth. You have not shown me where science has concluded anything. When I challenge you, I'm told science can't conclude things... then you return promptly to explaining to me how science has concluded! And so it goes... over and over... rinse and repeat!