This was an eye opener - cont.

[greenbean36191]

Do you think corals could have survived 100s of millions of years if there was not "some mechanism" that will kick in and sequester the excess CO2?

Modern coral reefs have not survived 100s of millions of years. They've only been around since the last group of reef builders went extinct. Reefs have disappeared completely for several million years at a time during multiple periods in the past, usually with the dominant reef builders at the time going extinct. At least a few of those periods where reefs disappeared coincide with periods of high CO2 and low pH.

Yes, there are mechanisms that eventually sequester the CO2, but not on any sort of timescale that can prevent the problems associated with current rates of CO2 increase.

 

[stugray]

greenbean,

We graciously celebrate your return to the table. ( Some of us promise to not screw it up this time ).


So when was the last "mass extinction" of corals & the subsequent evolution of the "current" versions?

Do we have any data that shows the CO2 levels when the extinction occurred?

I am of the family of believers that think that at least SOME of the "extinction level events" ELEs were caused by cometary/asteroid impacts and the following Climate changes.

Stu

 

[Dingo44]

Uh oh.... looks like I'm going to have to break out my Advanced Physics book now that the Bean is back.

Yeah, let's not get this thread locked like the last one, I've gotten so much out of this.

I too want to know what Stu asked.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15424143#post15424143 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. A few post ago you wrote this:

"from a guy who wears funny hats (who oh by the way was used, and first foundwhen a debater brought it in to in debate practice, as we were trying to dispute him and religious fanatic arguments) it became tosh!"

Then you wrote this:

"if i may sound like i am using his arguements word for word.....well....thats probably because they are good arguements"

Hmmmm.....

"no one ever has a thought all their own...so if you believe i should be siting, then so shpould you and everyone else according to MLA standards...."

The words everyone else and I have been typing are our own words, not copied DIRECTLY from someone else and passed off as our own thoughts. When we did use someone else's words, we cited. You can't bring in MLA because you have violated every rule they have on plagiarism, go read the handbook.

Another thing, everyone makes typos, but I'd like to ask you to please use your spell check a little because it's hard to figure out what you're trying to say when half the words have typos in them.

Just admit you copied, a lot, and I'll drop it. If you continue down this path, I will take the time and repost everything you copied along with the link to the videos and the times in those videos where you copied, word for word, what Mr. Craven said.

I'll leave you with another discrepancy from you:

"i explained that we HAD to watchi it in debate class "

"i just found the article by way of his vids, which my homes made me watch"

"i am not going to watch all 6 hours again"

Did you mean homies? Unless it's the same homies that watched it with you in debate class, you contridicted yourself, again. Someone MADE you watch 6 hours of those videos? There's something fishy here....

wow....this is the hole story....

in debate practice my friend brought these videos to me and asked if we could watch them, in place of doing the religious arguments, with actual religions, because...wel....its a wierd people here......any way, after he showed me these, i went home and finished the off, it was entertaining and i was bored....

many of his arguments are good arguements...the problem is an equal ammount are welll......not so good.

 

[ctenophors rule]

ok, corals have been stduied...and so far none are surviving the gentle acclimation from ph's......but i guess we will never know.....
until it happens...

any way i am commenting about the co2 convo, and how we are now argueing about wheather it is the primary source or not...

if you increase the co2, which is what...less than one percent of total GHG while water vapor is 97%, shouldn't that increase in temp also increase the water vapor content, which increases temp, which furthur increases water vapor content......doesn't it become a viscious cycle?

and if it does...what is/has started that cycle? co2? i think so, or rather the nas scientist think so....but again...go figure...

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15426950#post15426950 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
greenbean,

We graciously celebrate your return to the table. ( Some of us promise to not screw it up this time ).


So when was the last "mass extinction" of corals & the subsequent evolution of the "current" versions?

Do we have any data that shows the CO2 levels when the extinction occurred?

I am of the family of believers that think that at least SOME of the "extinction level events" ELEs were caused by cometary/asteroid impacts and the following Climate changes.

Stu

i don't see how if it were caused by a meteorite or us their would be any difference.....

 

[Dingo44]

So you admit to plagiarism? Cause I didn't see that in your comments.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15426705#post15426705 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
I am SURE that this is in the current "Models"...;-)

"A detailed analysis of soil samples taken from a forest ecosystem with artificially elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reveals distinct changes in the mix of microorganisms living in the soil below trembling aspen. These changes could increase the availability of essential soil nutrients, thereby supporting increased plant growth and the plants' ability to 'lock up,' or sequester, excess carbon from the atmosphere."

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08010125


So here is just ONE mechanism for increased CO2 consumption/sequestration that we did not predict with our models.

How many more will we discover as the global CO2 availability is increased?

As the Oceans absorb more CO2, we "predict" a catastrophic decrease in global Ph to the point that corals cannot survive.

Do you think corals could have survived 100s of millions of years if there was not "some mechanism" that will kick in and sequester the excess CO2?


Let me ask a question:

When you burn off Coal isnt CO2 a byproduct?
Where did the Coal come from in the first place? ( The atmosphere millions of years ago? )

We still cannot explain with certainty where all the oil & coal in the earth came from.
How can we say that elevated CO2 is catastrophic to the ecosystem?

I think the PROOF that the earth can absorb the excess CO2 is in the earth itself...

Stu

yeah sure their is coal in the ground, which means it was once co2, and that means that animals and plants, and other forms of organic matter died away and were barried...but the co2 rate is growing at a rate where the photosyntheszers can't grow fast enough to absorb it at the rate they decay and become barried...leaving us with a surplus of co2...or right back wherewe started.

hmmm, how can we say excessive co2 raised at its current rate is catastrophic to the environment.....idk? ohhhh!!!! maybe it has to do with the tests that many many scientist have performed and agree apon, like the coral acclimation to high co2 environment tests, but i forgot...those are scientist...sorry....i forgot...

maybe its because the politicions say so? yes that makes much more sense! then and the media with their devilish plan to make america bankrupt for absolutely no provable reason at all!

(btw some of this comment isn't directed at you....just belaying a few responses with a ready reply.....now i wait for people to tell me i am misunderstanding them:rolleye1: )

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15427627#post15427627 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Dingo44
So you admit to plagiarism? Cause I didn't see that in your comments.

wow i admit to plagerism, when you admit to plagerism for using the words "so you admit to plagerism" without citing someone who said it before you!

i didn't copy from him word for word, i may have used one of his arguements, but i didn't steel it from him..his version just sounds better...

like i hope green been doesn't mind me using her forest fire analogy.....but that is one of the best i have heard in a while!

and, i believe that he WANTS people to plagerise him because HE wants to spread the word about the problem, and the flaws in people like you's arguements...

which btw no one has properly responded too...you guys keep beeting around the bush....

my question is "what reputable scientific organisation believes that global warming isn't real or wont be as bad as nas(who's website is flippy for me) and the AAAS believe it will be, and why you go against the majority of scientist"

i have been waiting for a response for the past 5 pages........but no one has one.....this is where i feel i can't learn anything new from this discussion...to much damn beeting around the bush, and symantex.......

 

[stugray]

ctenophors rule,

"i don't see how if it were caused by a meteorite or us their would be any difference....."

Except for a couple of facts:

1 - If these ELEs & HUGE changes to our ecosystem ( Climate ) are caused by Random acts of stellar origin then the Models mean nothing because they cannot explain random "disturbances forces" from an outside influence.

2 - Humans are the first intelligent species ( that we know of ) that could possibly DO SOMETHING about an ELE if we could see it coming ( be it Human caused or "random acts of god").


We have now seen in only a few years of observing: TWO collisions with Jupiter of objects that WOULD HAVE been an ELE if it had hit the Earth.

If the probability of asteroid or comet collisions with the Earth were to be just a few percent above what we predict today, then a LOT of the global climate changes in the past could be attributed to these events.


Just a thought....


Stu

 

[Dingo44]

You know, I really wouldn't care too much about this if you were a little gracious to others on this thread. Whether you mean it or not, you are acting very conceded and elitist. Those little comments after your posts and those faces you put up sometimes are very condescending. You obviously don't know what plagiarism is, so I'm going to drop it because I feel it's a lost cause on you. Unless others on this thread want me to post examples of where you absolutely copied word for word some of Craven's material, then I'm done with it. For now I am writing you off and will continue to talk with everyone else who do read what people post and respond respectfully. Maybe I'll catch you in a Reef forum and we can talk like reasonable people.

 

[ScooterTDI]

Just ignore him. There isn't any point is responding to him. He doesn't want to participate in this conversation in a meaningful way anymore.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15427798#post15427798 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stugray
ctenophors rule,

"i don't see how if it were caused by a meteorite or us their would be any difference....."

Except for a couple of facts:

1 - If these ELEs & HUGE changes to our ecosystem ( Climate ) are caused by Random acts of stellar origin then the Models mean nothing because they cannot explain random "disturbances forces" from an outside influence.

2 - Humans are the first intelligent species ( that we know of ) that could possibly DO SOMETHING about an ELE if we could see it coming ( be it Human caused or "random acts of god").


We have now seen in only a few years of observing: TWO collisions with Jupiter of objects that WOULD HAVE been an ELE if it had hit the Earth.

If the probability of asteroid or comet collisions with the Earth were to be just a few percent above what we predict today, then a LOT of the global climate changes in the past could be attributed to these events.


Just a thought....


Stu

ok, but i refer back to green beans analogy about the forest fire, all because these extinctions have happened before, doesn't mean they can't be anthropogenic. an i see the mapping, but if we can map the asteroids before the hit us, even though we have never experienced a massive asteroid hit, then why can't we map the Mand made global warming?

i may be missing something here but....

 

[ctenophors rule]

and sorry to everyone if i have beena little short...i have wanted to leave because i feared this would happen i was begged to return...i return, i am short i get yelled at. lol
i am aware of what plagerism is, according the the MLA( modern language association) every single thing you ever say needs to be cited because it has all been said before...

yet again no one responds to my question...whether it is because they can't or.........idk, maybe its on principal....

i do read the posts, and i thought i was responding to them properly....i guess i wasn't...but then again for the past 6 pages i have had my main point (even after i specified blatantly that 'this is my main point") completely ignored or brushed off as if it were not viable because the scientist are corrupt....but.......

i formaly appologise for being short with anyone.......and admit that, besides being outright ignored, it was entirely unprovoked and i am a complete arse.....

will i be responded to?

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15426888#post15426888 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Modern coral reefs have not survived 100s of millions of years. They've only been around since the last group of reef builders went extinct. Reefs have disappeared completely for several million years at a time during multiple periods in the past, usually with the dominant reef builders at the time going extinct. At least a few of those periods where reefs disappeared coincide with periods of high CO2 and low pH.

Yes, there are mechanisms that eventually sequester the CO2, but not on any sort of timescale that can prevent the problems associated with current rates of CO2 increase.

Sort of true, but not entirely. Not all stony coral were wiped out, but the reefs were decimated many times throughout history. Then again, few organisms have existed unchanged throughout 100s of millions of years.

I would say that it is a little speculative to say that no mechanisms exist for relatively rapid CO2 sequestering. Its seems plausible that some mechanisms in nature aren't apparent until they are activated. Perhaps, CO2 (or any of the other GHGs) is a rate-limiting reactant ( forgive the chemistry terminology) in some process that is sitting idle at the moment.

Scott

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428041#post15428041 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
and sorry to everyone if i have beena little short...i have wanted to leave because i feared this would happen i was begged to return...i return, i am short i get yelled at. lol
i am aware of what plagerism is, according the the MLA( modern language association) every single thing you ever say needs to be cited because it has all been said before...

yet again no one responds to my question...whether it is because they can't or.........idk, maybe its on principal....

i do read the posts, and i thought i was responding to them properly....i guess i wasn't...but then again for the past 6 pages i have had my main point (even after i specified blatantly that 'this is my main point") completely ignored or brushed off as if it were not viable because the scientist are corrupt....but.......

i formaly appologise for being short with anyone.......and admit that, besides being outright ignored, it was entirely unprovoked and i am a complete arse.....

will i be responded to?

Apologies are always a good start, thank you. FYI, that is not what plaigarism is.

What do you want to know? I think I have already addressed everything you have asked.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428070#post15428070 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ScooterTDI
Sort of true, but not entirely. Not all stony coral were wiped out, but the reefs were decimated many times throughout history. Then again, few organisms have existed unchanged throughout 100s of millions of years.

I would say that it is a little speculative to say that no mechanisms exist for relatively rapid CO2 sequestering. Its seems plausible that some mechanisms in nature aren't apparent until they are activated. Perhaps, CO2 (or any of the other GHGs) is a rate-limiting reactant ( forgive the chemistry terminology) in some process that is sitting idle at the moment.

Scott

i assume that limiting reactants is sortof like a limiting factor, where a process, like eutrophication of bacteria, isn't allowed to happen unless a certain limited resource is added....

i will give you that, but then why is it that in the many coral species that have been tested( like in the graph of favre's report, which i haven't been able to read in a while, is their a problem with the website?) haven't reacted yet? is their a set period of time to which the rise in co2 must occur before it can be actiated? and if so, wouldn't their have been a slower rate of disolution towars the end of the study, that the scientist, who keep incredibly intense notes, must have listed somewhere...in which case, if someone has access to favres report, please pm me, or post here, so that i can research the study again? thanks!!!

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15427962#post15427962 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
ok, but i refer back to green beans analogy about the forest fire, all because these extinctions have happened before, doesn't mean they can't be anthropogenic. an i see the mapping, but if we can map the asteroids before the hit us, even though we have never experienced a massive asteroid hit, then why can't we map the Mand made global warming?

i may be missing something here but....

It is very interesting that you bring this up. Actually, we can't map asteroid paths very well. Part of the reason for this is that systems of more than two gravitational bodies are chaotic systems! Besides the massive asteroid impacts before human history, there has been a fairly significant meteroid/asteroid impact in Taguska(sp?), Russia back in the 50's I think. Not enough to cause major climate change, but still pretty significant.

Scott

 

[ctenophors rule]

what reputable scientific organisation believes that global warming isn't real or wont be as bad as nas(who's website is flippy for me) and the AAAS believe it will be, and why you go against the majority of scientist"

scooter this is a direct quote from my comment a few posts back, this is what i feel has yet to be answered.....thanks

 

[ScooterTDI]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15428118#post15428118 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ctenophors rule
i assume that limiting reactants is sortof like a limiting factor, where a process, like eutrophication of bacteria, isn't allowed to happen unless a certain limited resource is added....

i will give you that, but then why is it that in the many coral species that have been tested( like in the graph of favre's report, which i haven't been able to read in a while, is their a problem with the website?) haven't reacted yet? is their a set period of time to which the rise in co2 must occur before it can be actiated? and if so, wouldn't their have been a slower rate of disolution towars the end of the study, that the scientist, who keep incredibly intense notes, must have listed somewhere...in which case, if someone has access to favres report, please pm me, or post here, so that i can research the study again? thanks!!!

I wasn't saying that corals were involved in the rate-limiting processes. If such mechnisms exist, I have no doubt that such a "hidden" rate-limited process would lag somewhat behind the CO2/temp increase.

Scott