On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:





On Apr 22, 12:30 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"

trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm ....  you may find this interesting...http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/c7...

I did, and I'm familiar with the argumentation.





Also....  it seems that although benthic foramanifera (single celled
bottom dwelling lifeforms) had it rough.,...mammals on the other hand
did quite well....

The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by
the most rapid and significant climatic perturbation of the Cenozoic
Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum
1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late
Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with
oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-
sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on
land coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian
orders.

Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic
foramanifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000
years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T
extinction.
        Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
dinoflagellates bloomed.

        Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time.

The deep sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were
regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic): this means
that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-
related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness
due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was
global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that
the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result
in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on
corals.[17] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying
plankton,[18] (although the suitability of using strong acids to
simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from
elevated CO2 concentrations is unclear). This also led to an abundance
of heavily calcified algae[19] and weakly calcified forams.[20]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no
evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.
Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[21] - which may
(perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders,
including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from
nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the
initiation of the PETM.[21]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd call an event that introduced a
pause of 13,000 -- 22,000 years in the existence of higher order
animals catastrophic, at least for humans, given that human
civilisation is roughly 7000 years old. Roughly what proportion of
between 7 and 9 billion (2050 guess) would survive such an event, in
your modelling?

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 22, 5:56 am, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:





"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:675qcgF2lt891U1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480d2c1f$0$18479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:674ckaF2mlt5vU1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to
damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of
history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there
was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2
levels rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out
911 or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000
years ago there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels
get so high without pollution?

**OK. CO2 _is_ a pollutant. It got high due to production from single
celled critters.

Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

**IT DOESN'T MATTER. It rose due to different reasons millennia ago. Many
species were exterminated. It is rising today, due to CO2 production from
mankind. Many species will be exterminated.

Well what were the reasons and it does matter because if were going to
introduce global taxes we have to remove all doupt from sceptics like me..

No we don't.  Science doesn't depend on acceptance by fools.

Also I wonder if the Sun cycles were simular back then. Thats something for
me to research...

Yeah, why don't you "research" it?  And that doesn't mean
regurgitating crap from right-wing web sites.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well what were the reasons and it does matter because if were going to
introduce global taxes we have to remove all doupt from sceptics like me.

On Mon 21 Apr 2008 at 20:41:54 +1000 Seon Ferguson <seongf@gmail.com> wrote
in <480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:

Call me stupid


If you insist---and an adjective beginning with "i".

but don't humans, plants and in fact all living things send out CO2?


Stop-press from grade-four or grade-five biology: Humans and other animals
absorb oxygen and breathe it out as carbon dioxide, but most plants absorb
carbon dioxide and breathe it out as oxygen.

Seon, your sage words imply that you belong to the latter group of living
things.

So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent
to it since the beginning of history?

Bad question, regardless of your definition of "history". To learn to ask
questions about life that are more useful, and to find their answers, you
might consider going (back?) to primary skool.

On Apr 22, 1:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

.
I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching
the language. Religious belief makes no testable claims, whereas in
the case of AGW, one can see how the group of hypotheses might be
disproved. These haven't been disproved however, and indeed, such
reliable and pertinent data that does exist strongly recommends them
as the best explanation for the pattern of climate-relevant events we
have seen over the last century.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

People feel strongly on this matter, perhaps because the welfare of
humans in the here and now are in jeopardy and because those denying
the theory are in effect, attempting to excuse those who are parties
to the human activities that are creating the said jeopardy in
circumstances where good science supports the theory and the reckless
pursuit of a narrow sectional interest seeks to frustrate the
associated policy. Much the same pattern arose in past years in
realtion to smoking, aerosols like SO2, asbestos, vehicle emissions,
Ozone. Science said one thing and industry another, warning that
civilisation as we knew it would collapse if actione were taken to
limit damage. In the end, action was taken and civilisation survived
and was better for it, and indeed, even some of those complaining were
better for it. It's tiresome to have to revisit this pattern.

That shouldn't prompt people to start becoming abusive, but it's
probably inevitable that they will. This is not, after all, a
discussion over who will win the grand final or who is the hottest
person on TV but a matter bearing upon the wellbeing of nearly 7
billion people.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

Skepticism isn't mindless naysaying, and certainly not industry-driven
naysaying. Skepticism is a process in which hypotheses are subjected
to examination, to see if they fit relaiable pertinent data or lead to
conclusions that would be paradoxical. Have you never wondered why
none of those in this discussion called 'skeptics' are worrying that
the climate models might be too optimistic -- that the sea level or
CO2 or temperature rises or deglaciation projected by the IPCC might
be an underestimate, or the action proposed not as robust as needed?
There is some scope for thinking so, and yet, surprise surprise, the
skeptics all come on the other side of the argument. That says
something about their 'skepticism'.

Fran

On Apr 22, 4:03 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:16:03 -0400, Robert Blass wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:09:22 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> sayd the following:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient
Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for
accuracy.

That's pretty fucking sad then.

Nah. It's five out of a hundred. Pretty good, considering...

Is it Roger Coppock forging posts in your name, or are you just lying
again?

On Apr 22, 9:04 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 22, 4:54 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

On Apr 22, 8:11 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 1:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:> "Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

.

I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching
the language. Religious belief makes no testable claims, whereas in
the case of AGW, one can see how the group of hypotheses might be
disproved. These haven't been disproved however, and indeed, such
reliable and pertinent data that do exist strongly recommend them
as the best explanation for the pattern of climate-relevant events we
have seen over the last century.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

People feel strongly on this matter, perhaps because the welfare of
humans in the here and now is in jeopardy and because those denying
the theory are in effect, attempting to excuse those who are parties
to the human activities that are creating the said jeopardy in
circumstances where good science supports the theory and the reckless
pursuit of a narrow sectional interest seeks to frustrate the
associated policy. Much the same pattern arose in past years in
relation to smoking, aerosols like SO2, asbestos, vehicle emissions,
Ozone. Science said one thing and industry another, warning that
civilisation as we knew it would collapse if actions were taken to
limit damage. In the end, action was taken and civilisation survived
and was better for it, and indeed, even some of those complaining were
better for it.  It's tiresome to have to revisit this pattern.

That shouldn't prompt people to start becoming abusive, but it's
probably inevitable that they will. This is not, after all, a
discussion over who will win the grand final or who is the hottest
person on TV but a matter bearing upon the wellbeing of nearly 7
billion people.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

Skepticism isn't mindless naysaying, and certainly not industry-driven
naysaying. Skepticism is a process in which hypotheses are subjected
to examination, to see if they fit reliable pertinent data or lead to
conclusions that would be paradoxical. Have you never wondered why
none of those in this discussion called 'skeptics' are worrying that
the climate models might be too optimistic -- that the sea level or
CO2 or temperature rises or deglaciation projected by the IPCC might
be an underestimate, or the action proposed not as robust as needed?
There is some scope for thinking so, and yet, surprise surprise, the
skeptics all come on the other side of the argument.  That says
something about their 'skepticism'.

Carefully-phrased, well-explained, realistic posting. That'll earn you
very many minus points on this ng.-

*Tant pis*, as they say up your way.

I trust that was short for 'Tant pis pour eux' )-

On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Apr 22, 12:30 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"

trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au....

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm ....  you may find this interesting...http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/c7...

I did, and I'm familiar with the argumentation.

Also....  it seems that although benthic foramanifera (single celled
bottom dwelling lifeforms) had it rough.,...mammals on the other hand
did quite well....

The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by
the most rapid and significant climatic perturbation of the Cenozoic
Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum
1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late
Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with
oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-
sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on
land coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian
orders.

Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic
foramanifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000
years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T
extinction.
        Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
dinoflagellates bloomed.

        Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time.

The deep sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were
regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic): this means
that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-
related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness
due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was
global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that
the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result
in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on
corals.[17] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying
plankton,[18] (although the suitability of using strong acids to
simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from
elevated CO2 concentrations is unclear). This also led to an abundance
of heavily calcified algae[19] and weakly calcified forams.[20]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no
evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.
Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[21] - which may
(perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders,
including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from
nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the
initiation of the PETM.[21]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd call an event that introduced a
pause of 13,000 -- 22,000 years in the existence of higher order
animals catastrophic, at least for humans, given that human
civilisation is roughly 7000 years old. Roughly what proportion of
between 7 and 9 billion (2050 guess) would survive such an event, in
your modelling?

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

   There was mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foramanifera.
However the PETM was..."coincident with the emergence of many of
today's major mammalian orders."

   And .... " Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
         dinoflagellates bloomed."
         "Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time."

     I like that last line....  to me, it sounds like  "Success was
also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."

                   I also like... "coincident with the emergence of
many of today's major mammalian orders."

    Seems like these sentences can be easily understood..... so
benthic foramanifera had a rough time,   but mammals did very well
indeed. The PETM seemed to be actually very good for them

On Apr 23, 5:23 am, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:





On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Apr 22, 12:30 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"

trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au....

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm ....  you may find this interesting...http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/c7...

I did, and I'm familiar with the argumentation.

Also....  it seems that although benthic foramanifera (single celled
bottom dwelling lifeforms) had it rough.,...mammals on the other hand
did quite well....

The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by
the most rapid and significant climatic perturbation of the Cenozoic
Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum
1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late
Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with
oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-
sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on
land coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian
orders.

Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic
foramanifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000
years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T
extinction.
        Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
dinoflagellates bloomed.

        Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time.

The deep sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were
regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic): this means
that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-
related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness
due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was
global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that
the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result
in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on
corals.[17] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying
plankton,[18] (although the suitability of using strong acids to
simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from
elevated CO2 concentrations is unclear). This also led to an abundance
of heavily calcified algae[19] and weakly calcified forams.[20]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no
evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.
Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[21] - which may
(perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders,
including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from
nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the
initiation of the PETM.[21]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd call an event that introduced a
pause of 13,000 -- 22,000 years in the existence of higher order
animals catastrophic, at least for humans, given that human
civilisation is roughly 7000 years old. Roughly what proportion of
between 7 and 9 billion (2050 guess) would survive such an event, in
your modelling?

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

   There was mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foramanifera.
However the PETM was..."coincident with the emergence of many of
today's major mammalian orders."

   And .... " Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
         dinoflagellates bloomed."
         "Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time."

     I like that last line....  to me, it sounds like  "Success was
also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."

                   I also like... "coincident with the emergence of
many of today's major mammalian orders."

    Seems like these sentences can be easily understood..... so
benthic foramanifera had a rough time,   but mammals did very well
indeed. The PETM seemed to be actually very good for them

Where are you going with this? Let's spell this out in terms you can
understand.

You want to conduct an open ended experiment (the results of which you
won't be around to see and for ends that are unclear) aimed at finding
out if humanity could survive CO2 levels equivalent to those in the
PETM with the guess that humanity could begin its recovery in some
unspecified period some eons later.

The downside is huge and unspecified and its prospects of realisation
very high. In the best case scenrio, nearly everybody lives very
badly. Satisfying a debating point after you're dead, if that's the
aim, doesn't tick any box of utility of sufficient value to make it
worth considering.

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:675s4uF2nekljU1@mid.individual.net...



"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480db6a1$0$18442$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:675qcgF2lt891U1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480d2c1f$0$18479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:674ckaF2mlt5vU1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and
in fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed
to damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the
beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2 levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last
time CO2 levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years
ago) there was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will
happen WHEN CO2 levels rise further? Do you know what mass extinction
means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out
911 or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000
years ago there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels
get so high without pollution?

**OK. CO2 _is_ a pollutant. It got high due to production from single
celled critters.

Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

**IT DOESN'T MATTER. It rose due to different reasons millennia ago.
Many species were exterminated. It is rising today, due to CO2
production from mankind. Many species will be exterminated.

Well what were the reasons

**Asked and answered.

and it does matter because if were going to
introduce global taxes we have to remove all doupt from sceptics like me.

**If you cannot read the data, then no one can help you. The information
has been presented and there is no little doubt. If you, with your
esteemed scientific credentials, still can't figure it out, then be
prepared to be ignored.

Also I wonder if the Sun cycles were simular back then. Thats something
for me to research...

**Off you go then. The rest of humanity will accept the truth. You can
continue to deny it, if that's what floats your boat.

Hey there's pleanty of other's who question if we really are causing global
warming.

"V-for-Vendicar" <Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message

news:R_fPj.53620$612.16537@read1.cgocable.net...



"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote
I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out
911
or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000 years
ago
there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels get so high
without pollution? Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because
of
similar reasons?

Nope.  Atmospheric CO2 has an isotopic signature and so does oil in the
ground.  Those signatures are now overlapping in the atmosphere, hence the
excess CO2 is from oil/coal

Not sufficient.  The isotopic overlap only proves that a lot of the CO2
being added to the air has spent a long time away from cosmic radiation.
And thereforer is low in C-14.

The CO2 released during the volcanic activities from the break up of a
super-continent 400,000 years ago would have a similar signature since it
too was buried underground for a long time and was low in C-14.  So the
isotopic signature only rules out 'recent sources' of CO2 such as
deforestation.  It doesn't prove fossil fuel is the source.  Unless you have
some isotopic samples from 400,000 years ago to compare with???

daestrom

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480db6a1$0$18442$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:675qcgF2lt891U1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480d2c1f$0$18479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:674ckaF2mlt5vU1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and
in fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed
to damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the
beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2 levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last
time CO2 levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years
ago) there was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will
happen WHEN CO2 levels rise further? Do you know what mass extinction
means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out
911 or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000
years ago there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels
get so high without pollution?

**OK. CO2 _is_ a pollutant. It got high due to production from single
celled critters.

Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

**IT DOESN'T MATTER. It rose due to different reasons millennia ago.
Many species were exterminated. It is rising today, due to CO2
production from mankind. Many species will be exterminated.

Well what were the reasons

**Asked and answered.

and it does matter because if were going to
introduce global taxes we have to remove all doupt from sceptics like me.

**If you cannot read the data, then no one can help you. The information
has been presented and there is no little doubt. If you, with your
esteemed scientific credentials, still can't figure it out, then be
prepared to be ignored.

Also I wonder if the Sun cycles were simular back then. Thats something
for me to research...

**Off you go then. The rest of humanity will accept the truth. You can
continue to deny it, if that's what floats your boat.

Hey there's pleanty of other's who question if we really are causing global

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote
I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out
911
or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000 years
ago
there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels get so high
without pollution? Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because
of
similar reasons?

Nope. Atmospheric CO2 has an isotopic signature and so does oil in the
ground. Those signatures are now overlapping in the atmosphere, hence the
excess CO2 is from oil/coal

On Apr 22, 6:29 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 23, 5:23 am, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:02 pm, Cato <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Apr 22, 12:30 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:43 am, "Trevor Wilson"

trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Actually, that's not so. The last time CO2 levels were above where
they are today was at least 650,000 years ago, very probably more than
2 million years ago and possibly as much as 55.8 million years ago, at
what is known as the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum (PETM). That was
also the last of the five major extinction events affecting the
planet. At the PETM, increases in CO2 of 1500 -- 2000 Gt were emitted
over about 1000 years, which is not slower than the rate at which
atmospheric CO2 is building up today.

That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event
we know of involved progressive buildup of atmospheric CO2 inventories
slower than what we have now. Temperatures increased by about 6
degrees C over about 1000 years, or about 0.6 degrees C per century
i.e a little less than our last century.

It's important not to confuse extinction events with ice ages, since
contemporary humanity's most primitive ancestors surivived a number of
these, but nothing above about 35 kg (and not much that was less than
35 kg either) survived the PETM.

It's also worth noting that whatever one thinks of the link between
CO2 and warming, an atmosphere with 1000PPM CO2 would be a lot less
pleasant to live in -- it would be rather like living one's entire
life in a stuffy room. The humans alive then could easily see that
level by 2096, and have to helplessly endure them spiralling to about
2000 PPM within another 20-30 years. Whatever happened to the planet,
life on Earth would be tough for anyone without access to personal
supplies of fresh air.

Fran

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm ....  you may find this interesting...http://igitur-archive..library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/c7...

I did, and I'm familiar with the argumentation.

Also....  it seems that although benthic foramanifera (single celled
bottom dwelling lifeforms) had it rough.,...mammals on the other hand
did quite well....

The Paleocene/Eocene boundary, 55.8 million years ago, was marked by
the most rapid and significant climatic perturbation of the Cenozoic
Era. A sudden global warming event, leading to the Paleocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum (PETM, alternatively "Eocene thermal maximum
1" (ETM1), and formerly known as the "Initial Eocene" or "Late
Paleocene Thermal Maximum",[1] (IETM/LPTM)), is associated with
oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-
sea benthic foraminifera and a major turnover in mammalian life on
land coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian
orders.

Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic
foramanifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1000
years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T
extinction.
        Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
dinoflagellates bloomed.

        Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time.

The deep sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were
regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic): this means
that we cannot appeal to general hypotheses such as a temperature-
related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness
due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters. The only factor which was
global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that
the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders.

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result
in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on
corals.[17] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying
plankton,[18] (although the suitability of using strong acids to
simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from
elevated CO2 concentrations is unclear). This also led to an abundance
of heavily calcified algae[19] and weakly calcified forams.[20]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no
evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota.
Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[21] - which may
(perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders,
including the Artiodactyla, horses and primates, appeared as if from
nowhere, and spread across the globe, 13,000 to 22,000 years after the
initiation of the PETM.[21]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd call an event that introduced a
pause of 13,000 -- 22,000 years in the existence of higher order
animals catastrophic, at least for humans, given that human
civilisation is roughly 7000 years old. Roughly what proportion of
between 7 and 9 billion (2050 guess) would survive such an event, in
your modelling?

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

   There was mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foramanifera.
However the PETM was..."coincident with the emergence of many of
today's major mammalian orders."

   And .... " Contrarily, planktonic foramanifera diversified, and
         dinoflagellates bloomed."
         "Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated
profusely around this time."

     I like that last line....  to me, it sounds like  "Success was
also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time."

                   I also like... "coincident with the emergence of
many of today's major mammalian orders."

    Seems like these sentences can be easily understood..... so
benthic foramanifera had a rough time,   but mammals did very well
indeed. The PETM seemed to be actually very good for them

Where are you going with this? Let's spell this out in terms you can
understand.

You want to conduct an open ended experiment (the results of which you
won't be around to see and for ends that are unclear) aimed at finding
out if humanity could survive CO2 levels equivalent to those in the
PETM with the guess that humanity could begin its recovery in some
unspecified period some eons later.

The downside is huge and unspecified and its prospects of realisation
very high. In the best case scenrio, nearly everybody lives very
badly. Satisfying a debating point after you're dead, if that's the
aim, doesn't tick any box of utility of sufficient value to make it
worth considering.

Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmm... just that the PETM subject that you began.....  high CO2 levels
during PETM.. mammals did very well for some reason at the time....
   ... it seems that the pretty well the only life forms that really
experienced high extinction rates (35% - 50%) were benthic
foramanifera.

    Mammals, and other life forms thrived during that period of very
high CO2 and much warmer world (warm to the point that the Earth was
essentially ice-free,  forests in the arctic regions)....

    I find that interesting....don't you???

     Perhaps Global Warming is not the big terrible disaster that some
people try to make it out to be.

That would be great news.  

On Apr 22, 5:49 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:675s4uF2nekljU1@mid.individual.net...



"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480db6a1$0$18442$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:675qcgF2lt891U1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480d2c1f$0$18479$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in
message
news:674ckaF2mlt5vU1@mid.individual.net...

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants
and
in fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2
supposed
to damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the
beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2 levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last
time CO2 levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000
years
ago) there was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will
happen WHEN CO2 levels rise further? Do you know what mass
extinction
means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried
out
911 or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are
400,000
years ago there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2
levels
get so high without pollution?

**OK. CO2 _is_ a pollutant. It got high due to production from single
celled critters.

Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

**IT DOESN'T MATTER. It rose due to different reasons millennia ago.
Many species were exterminated. It is rising today, due to CO2
production from mankind. Many species will be exterminated.

Well what were the reasons

**Asked and answered.

and it does matter because if were going to
introduce global taxes we have to remove all doupt from sceptics like
me.

**If you cannot read the data, then no one can help you. The
information
has been presented and there is no little doubt. If you, with your
esteemed scientific credentials, still can't figure it out, then be
prepared to be ignored.

Also I wonder if the Sun cycles were simular back then. Thats
something
for me to research...

**Off you go then. The rest of humanity will accept the truth. You can
continue to deny it, if that's what floats your boat.

Hey there's pleanty of other's who question if we really are causing
global
warming.

Sure there are, poorly educated idiots just like yourself.

You can't understand the science, so you question it.

Prepare for greatness, man, you're a genius.