how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Gslack -

I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.

I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.

Really? Hawking has "confirmed" AGW "theory"? No, imbecile, it is his OPNION....nothing else.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.

When the ocean becomes saturated to a certain point the excess is used to create limestone.

Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic - and acid dissolves limestone.

 

[SSDD]

Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm? How about at 2000ppm? 3000ppm? 4000ppm? 5000ppm? 6000ppm? 7000ppm?

The only "horror" I listed in my post that you are replying to was that humans would be severely reduced in number. Humans weren't even around the last time Co2 was at 1000 pm. So your question doesn't really make sense.

Why? We know that life on both land and in the oceans thrived during periods when atmospheric CO2 was multiple orders of magnitude higher than it is now...The fossil record indicates that diversity during those periods made the present look positively barren.

Exactly what do you think is going to kill us off?

The last time the Earth was at 7000 ppm the trilobite was the dominant form of life. Would you like to be replaced by a trilobite? Do you honestly think the Earth would have been hospitable to human life in the Cambrian era?

A diversity of life exploded during the cambrian and recent study has indicated that the climate during that period wasn't so different than today. 7000ppm is a bit out of the question any time soon. Answer the question...at what concentration do you think atmospheric CO2 will cause an ecological catastrophe? Pick a number between 400 and 7000.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic - and acid dissolves limestone.

You just pointed out that trilobites evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm and we know that most marine life that exists today evolved during periods when atmospheric CO2 was between 7000 and 4500ppm. How "acidic" do you think the oceans were when atmopspheric CO2 was 7000ppm? 5000ppm? 1000ppm? and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?...again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 do you think the ecological disaster will begin...we know it didn't at 7000...so what level are you worried about and why?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?

Um....I'm surprised that Mr Hawking's teacher doesn't know about coral bleaching...

Bleaching occurs when the conditions necessary to sustain the coral's zooxanthellae cannot be maintained.[3] Any environmental trigger that affects the coral's ability to supply the zooxanthellae with nutrients for photosynthesis (carbon dioxide, ammonium) will lead to expulsion.[3] This process is a "downward spiral", whereby the coral's failure to prevent the division of zooxanthellae leads to ever-greater amounts of the photosynthesis-derived carbon to be diverted into the algae rather than the coral. This makes the energy balance required for the coral to continue sustaining its algae more fragile, and hence the coral loses the ability to maintain its parasitic control on its zooxanthellae.

Physiologically the lipid composition of the symbiont thylakoid membrane affects their structural integrity when there is a change in temperature, which combined with increased nitric acid results in damage to Photosystem 2. As a result of accumulated oxidative stress and the damage to the thylakoid of chloroplasts there is a increase in degradation of the symbiosis and the symbionts will eventually abandon their host. Not only the change in temperature from the water increases the chances of bleaching there are other factors that play a role. Other factors that contribute to bleaching are increase in solar radiation (UV and visible light), regional weather conditions and for intertidal corals exposure to cold winds

Coral bleaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.

If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is. Perhaps he is a savant....brilliant in one specific area and a blithering idiot in everything else.

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die. We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

 

[Saigon]

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.

And of course loss of biodiversity is one thing that we know does occur as a result of climate change - as with coral reefs, for instance.

I somehow think most of us would rather adapt than die.

New technologies will allow us to do so, but only over the cold, dead bodies of the luddites.

If S. Hawking is ignoring what we know happened in the past in order to remain part of the "consensus" then perhaps he isn't as bright as you think he is

I don't think there can be any question that you know more about both physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics than he, or indeed any other scientists, do.

 

[SSDD]

And of course loss of biodiversity is one thing that we know does occur as a result of climate change - as with coral reefs, for instance.

Ignoring the paleo record doesn't make it go away. Diversity was far greater during periods when the earth was considerably warmer than the present. Diversity suffers during times when temperatures are cooler as in the present.

I don't think there can be any question that you know more about both physics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics than he, or indeed any other scientists, do.

I am not making claims that are in direct contradiction to known historical events...both, you, he, and the rest of the warmers out there are. It is your own intelligence that gets called into question when you claim that a thing will happen when history has shown repeatedly that it won't.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Diversity was far greater during periods when the earth was considerably warmer than the present.

That may well be true, but that does not mean human life (not any other species on earth in 2013) will be able to survive a significant increase in desertification, temperatures etc, does it?

when you claim that a thing will happen when history has shown repeatedly that it won't.

And yet climate change is happening now, and is measured in observable data every day.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic - and acid dissolves limestone.

You just pointed out that trilobites evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm and we know that most marine life that exists today evolved during periods when atmospheric CO2 was between 7000 and 4500ppm. How "acidic" do you think the oceans were when atmopspheric CO2 was 7000ppm? 5000ppm? 1000ppm? and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?...again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 do you think the ecological disaster will begin...we know it didn't at 7000...so what level are you worried about and why?

Acidic enough that the coral reefs of today would all be dead.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.

You wanna die?

We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

Except for all the evidence that's been presented in hundreds to thousands of research papers.

 

[westwall]

Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.

When the ocean becomes saturated to a certain point the excess is used to create limestone.

Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic - and acid dissolves limestone.

Uhhhhhh, let's see here.....you could burn EVERY carbon bearing rock on the planet and it would lower the pH of the oceans from 8.1 to 8. What is that? Acidic or alkaline?

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

I appreciate that you know more about physics than Stephan Hawking does, but even at the stratospheric heights of your genius is it possible to imagine that the impact of climate change is not some kind of 'Battle of Los Angeles' armageddon, but a very,very gradual increase in temperatures, floods, droughts etc?

Any major loss of human life might not occur for another thousand years - that does not make climate change any more desirable.

Only the temps aren't rising, the Antarctic is growing in ice cover except for the peninsula, the Arctic is holding steady if not increasing, in other words....every single claim that you all have made is proving to be wrong.

How do you reconcile that with your skewed view of reality?

 

[westwall]

SSDD -

Diversity was far greater during periods when the earth was considerably warmer than the present.

That may well be true, but that does not mean human life (not any other species on earth in 2013) will be able to survive a significant increase in desertification, temperatures etc, does it?

when you claim that a thing will happen when history has shown repeatedly that it won't.

And yet climate change is happening now, and is measured in observable data every day.

Really? Do tell. The three major warmist leaders have all said the temps have held constant for at least 10 years.

 

[westwall]

Yeah right - except that CO2 makes water acidic - and acid dissolves limestone.

You just pointed out that trilobites evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm and we know that most marine life that exists today evolved during periods when atmospheric CO2 was between 7000 and 4500ppm. How "acidic" do you think the oceans were when atmopspheric CO2 was 7000ppm? 5000ppm? 1000ppm? and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?...again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 do you think the ecological disaster will begin...we know it didn't at 7000...so what level are you worried about and why?

Acidic enough that the coral reefs of today would all be dead.

You need to take a paleo class. Coral EVOLVED when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 20 times higher than the present day. When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.

 

[westwall]

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.

You wanna die?

We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

Except for all the evidence that's been presented in hundreds to thousands of research papers.

Yeah, you mean all those papers based on computer models and rushed through pal review? Those papers? Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You just pointed out that trilobites evolved when atmospheric CO2 was 7000ppm and we know that most marine life that exists today evolved during periods when atmospheric CO2 was between 7000 and 4500ppm. How "acidic" do you think the oceans were when atmopspheric CO2 was 7000ppm? 5000ppm? 1000ppm? and did that level of "acidity" seem to have any effect on the profusion of oceanic life that evolved when levels were so high?...again, at what level of atmospheric CO2 do you think the ecological disaster will begin...we know it didn't at 7000...so what level are you worried about and why?

Acidic enough that the coral reefs of today would all be dead.

You need to take a paleo class. Coral EVOLVED when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 20 times higher than the present day.

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.

Did the scientists have names?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Climate change is what happens on earth...the adaptable survive...the specialists die.

You wanna die?

We are not causing global climate change and there isn't a single shred of observed, measured proof to support those who claim that we are.

Except for all the evidence that's been presented in hundreds to thousands of research papers.

Yeah, you mean all those papers based on computer models and rushed through pal review? Those papers?

Which ones would those be? Were they written by scientists with names?

Please.....those are pathetic examples of science and when they are exposed to real peer review they get demolished in hours.

You haven't read a single one of them.

 

[westwall]

Acidic enough that the coral reefs of today would all be dead.

You need to take a paleo class. Coral EVOLVED when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 20 times higher than the present day.

Notice I said coral reefs of TODAY? I mean I know you are the world's foremost expert at everything, so certainly you should understand English, right?

When scientists have exposed corals to acidic ocean water (far, far higher than they could ever experience in the real world they have grown thicker shells...surprise surprise.

Did the scientists have names?

Have the corals changed somehow? The last time I checked the critters were the same. Now all of a sudden they can't survive for some dumb ass reason? Can't you read? Do you have no ability to reason? Or are you so fundamentally brainwashed that you have no ability to think?


And here are the cites for you to educate yourself further.

^ a b Kelly, D.C.; Bralower, T.J.; Zachos, J.C. (1998). "Evolutionary consequences of the latest Paleocene thermal maximum for tropical planktonic foraminifera". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 141 (1): 139–161. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(98)00017-0. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ Bralower, T.J. (2002). "Evidence of surface water oligotrophy during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum: Nannofossil assemblage data from Ocean Drilling Program Site 690, Maud Rise, Weddell Sea". Paleoceanography 17 (2): 1023. Bibcode:2002PalOc..17b..13B. doi:10.1029/2001PA000662. Retrieved 2008-02-28.

^ a b Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P. (April 2008). "Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World". Science 320 (5874): 336–40. Bibcode:2008Sci...320..336I. doi:10.1126/science.1154122. PMID 18420926.