I see 432 dislikes. thats telling me theres at least 432 people who are uneducated in how ecosystems and plant biology works. I for one have my career and passion in these two fields. and for years i have been smiling about the amount of CO2.
You have been preprogrammed through media to beleive that CO2 is destructive. Trees are also our natural temperature regulators. you cut down the trees, and you will get hotter and cooler extremes. f*ck climate change, get off your ass and plant a tree
@KanadianKain this video was made by and paid for by an oil executive named H Leighton Steward from Houston associated with Conocophillips petroleum company. You like a video made by an oil tycoon targeted at idiots to contact their senator to help oil companies make more profits. Know what that makes you? An idiot.
Follow the money, A pesticide manufacturer has every incentive to convince people their product is effective and safe to use, even if it isn't true.
The SAME is true of a lot of the big names pushing carbon controls. Al Gore for instance stands to GAIN a lot from carbon trading, and LOSE a lot otherwise, as the technology isn't yet potent enough to support much on it's own.
A new study has found that co2 mixed with water vapour cools the planet. The greenhouse theory has been debunked by a team of scientists . Time to end the idiotic theory now?
All right guys believe me I ain't fooling no one. I know what I'm talking about.
The guys behind this ad are evil geniuses basically. Co2 is ESSENTIAL for plants because of the photosynthesis, the basis of their survival, with no plants no life, they are right.
Here is the part they don't want you to know: Too much Co2 FUCKS UP the atmosphere, not the wild life directly. But once you fuck with the atmosphere you are indirectly DESTROYING every ecossistem cause everysingle specie needs air right?
‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.’
@birminghamb1ues Many of which weren't real people. Many of which didn't have an actual bachelor's degree. Many of which were not active contributors to their fields. Many of which were not climate scientists.
That's been debunked looooong ago. Look more deeply into it and you will see.
If c02 is good when there's the right amount of it then shouldn't we say that too much c02 is bad instead of calling c02 pollution? Too much water is bad but no one calls water pollution. I know c02 is a gas but it's not pollution. Too much c02 is pollution.
Propaganda garbage designed to sway the weak, stupid and ill-informed.
It's sad and pathetic what some people will do to be able to keep selling their poisonous oil/gasoline. If you want to strike a blow for good buy an electric car.
The message of this video is that rising CO2 levels do NOT cause global warming. This is true. If we can stop worrying about global warming, we can focus on really important enviornmental issues such as destruction of the oceans through pollution and factory fishing, destruction of rain forests. Also, we should switch to ethanol to fuel our vehicles because it is cleaner, and can put our farmers to work. Imagine how clean our cities would be with no diesel or gas pollution in the air! Go Ethanol
"Pollution" of oceans includes acidification. Acidification is caused by too high levels of CO2. So please do your homework and study how our earth system works.
@kentuckydan I was responding to "original cause" and trying to tell her, that rising CO2-levels are causing destruction of oceans by acidification, which is pollution as well. Of course I do not "support" global warning. The "CO2 is green-ad" is propaganda in the best tradition of Goebbels. Telling the absurdest possible lies and selling them as patriotic truths. Disgusting, as I may say so.
I guess if a sympathetic sounding voice would tell Americans that suicide creates job opportunities and revenue they would go out and hang themselves.
global warming is a fraud. why dont you CO2 haters google the hacked ipcc emails that expose gw for what it is, a way to rob us of billions through carbon trading. ohhh thank you so much al whore
Yeh, but actually after a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plants arent able to actually process it and just suffocate as any other living thing on earth would :/ too bad they dont teach that in school!
Co2 alone isn't bad. Without Co2, we'd all be dead. However, it is the extent to which CO2 exists. In the status quo, the amount of CO2 is overwhelming and hence is dangerous to life on earth.
@master2nr Very true and it is also true that when CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher than now the biosphere was far more prolific than now,
We live in one of the coolest, driest, most CO2 deprived times of the last 500 million years and compared to previous eras when CO2 levels were much higher the present biosphere is an ecollogical desert
@master2nr Thanks for trying to clear up a misconception here, but you appear to be simply repeating what someone else has told you. Please provide your own observational evidence. To which extent is CO2 dangerous? Please provide evidence showing a certain CO2 concentration and its effects on the environment.
@master2nr 7,000ppm when life exploded on earth 150ppm the lowest it has been on earth 350ppm and slowly rising. No need to worry yet. In context it is at low end of spectrum
@master2nr That is clear as mud do you contend that during the last 500 milliion years when CO2 levesl were FAR greater than now it was dangerous to life on Earth,
@master2nr Really? How so? How is it that at 280 ppm, pre-industrial concentration is okay, but 390 ppm (0.039%) is dangerous??? really? Do you have a link?
@whistler2255 A simple search of the scientific literature will give you your answer. But I guess just repeating what you see on propoganda mills is better.
@master2nr Dangerous to life on earth? How so? Plants thrive in CO2 rich environments and CO2 is not considered dangerous to humans until around 8000 parts per billion which is a ways to go from the current 388 ppb.
People People people , You want to be scammed . You want the elites to tax and cap the gas that comes out of your mouths so they can run our entire lives . You will all love licking boots in the New World Order that they said didn't exist but they do and that it's "good" Fucking Sheeple !
We need more people to understand this. Here's a fact, volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. How do you stop that? IDIOTS!
OMFG How can u Americans be so Na-iv and dumb!??? CO2 are as poison! When the rest of the world is cutting these gases as much as they can, Americans consider it as "friendly for the environment" LOL Americans are the biggest fucking joke in the world!
People People people , You want to be scammed . You want the elites to tax and cap the gas that comes out of your mouths so they can run our entire lives . You will all love licking boots in the New World Order that they said didn't exist but they do and that it's "good" Fucking Sheeple !
Everything has to be taken in moderation. Water is even unhealthy if you drink too much. Think about the woman a few years back that was on a radio contest to win a Wii. She died from too much water intake.
@jaxmyers 7,000ppm when life exploded on earth 150ppm the lowest it has been on earth 350ppm and slowly rising. No need to worry yet. In context it is at low end of spectrum
@jaxmyers We live in one of the coldest most CO2 deprived eras of the last 1/2 Billion years, Previously when CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher the biosphere both Fauna and Flora were far more prolific So to put it in perspective using your paradigm the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is far lower than is naturan and healthy, Right now what we are doing is raising the temperature of the patient who does not have a Fever, but instead a severe case of Hypothermia
@jaxmyers How much do you think is too much? RIght now we are at about 390 parts per million! Do you realize how small a percentage that is? as a deciamal, it looks like this - 0.00039, not even 4/10 of 1%.
camoon.. yes, millions years ago co2 might been much higher than nowdays, but did man existed back then? when climate is changing, it also chanse species, and in world much warmer there might not be room for mankind..
This deliberate misinformation is appalling. A big lie is still a big lie, even if it is spoken in a suave, persuasive ad-man's voice. Climate Change Denial ought to be made a crime, just as spreading demoralizing lies was during the second world war. We face an enemy as deadly now as we did then. It's just easier to see an enemy that wears Nazi uniform. Runaway CO2 will change our way of life even more severely than Hitler would have done. We need a Winston Churchill to rally world opinion!
Such bull...CO2 is neither good or bad. The planet needs balance. Life has developed with the natural amount of CO2 and not the extra amount that people behind campains like this spread into the air. Disruption of that will be sensed in everyone's lives, just like a hitch in one's house. Cause this planet is our home...And we cant move out.
I think you're a bit confused as to how the carbon cycle works. plants can thrive in a purely CO2 environment so long as they are provided the necessary sunlight and water for photosynthesis to take place. Those plants in turn release O2 this is what is vital to animal life which then output CO2 again.
even if CO2 did hurt plants (which it doesn't) there are not enough fossil fuels for us to even come close to matching the amount of O2 with CO2, the plants had a head start and are better at it.
That's not the point though...And i am well aware of that system, i have learned about it...
first of all, u r wrong. Plant spread the O2 to the air before they breath is and use it again, and if the concentration of the O2 is too small for them, they'll choke (just like u btw...).
And we are not talking about O2 vs. CO2. We are talking about the fact that the planet is getting warmer and it's bad for us and very dangerous for the generations to come...
well not only is your first point uncomprehendable but it's also inaccurate have a look at the formula for photosynthesis:
CO2 + H2O + Light -> C6H12O6(sugar) + O2
Plants do not use oxygen.
Your second point; while readable is misguided. The little evidence that says CO2 adds to any sort of "Global Warming" also says that the effects a negligible. while there is evidence to support a "green house" effect its mostly attributed to water vapor. It's a natural cycle we cant control it.
Of course they do...Just like they use the sugar. Or do u think they produce it for fun?
They are making their own food. We cant...That's why we eat them. Or aminals that eat them...
as for YOUR second point, it's indeed a natural cycle, but we have made it go faster and it's gonna damage us. So u can keep arguing and try to be right, or u can do what's best for u.
Also, plants most assuredly DO use Oxygen. Photosynthesis is only one half of what plants do; while they form sugars through photosynthesis during the day, at night the process reverses when the plants respire to make use of the stored chemical energy in the sugar. Its a mistake to think of them as "carbon scrubbers."
Yes; plants respire, however; they do this all the time not just at night. photosynthesis produces O2 at a faster rate than respiration uses it so when I said plants don't need O2 it wasn't incorrect but rather not clear because they don't need Extra O2 they make their own. Also I said a plant can thrive in a purely CO2 environment IF (and only if) they are provided the necessarily sunlight and water.
sorry I didn't make that clear. I admit my first posts were rather misleading in that sense.
Actually, I think you'll find that plant respiration increases significantly at night (when they still require energy, because they don't sleep, and thus need to raid their glucose stores for it via respiration); and the total rate of consumption is roughly equivalent to the O2 release through photosynthesis. It is, on the whole, balanced. And we know of plenty of extreme-o-philes that can survive in inhospitable climates, what does that prove?
"the idea that an increase in CO2 would harm plants even in the slightest is absurd as plants don't work like that."
Actually, CO2 induced global warming changes weather patterns, and you'd be surprised how much crops dislike freak snow-storms, droughts, etc. Even a gradual increase in net rainfall can increase levels of pestilence in crops. One example is the propagation of potato blight, which famously caused the great potato famine.
Yes but there was free range buffalo and free range (something i forget what) that roamed America and Eurasia and now there number has dwindled to nil. Not sure what loss is to gain in domesticated animals not to say it evens out as i am sure domestics higher end but not as high as one would think. Just because we evolved in colder climate doesn't mean we wouldn't survive a warmer one and a doubling of c02 still doesn't compare with dinosaurs time of c02ppm
We're ignoring it because he doesn't know what he is talking about, RE: Venus. RE: the current interglacial period: "Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming" So tmtyler, in his fight against the next ice-age, something he considers a priority for humanity, would happily see us suffer desertification for 5x the history of civilisation before any benefits are apparent.
Of course avoiding reglaciation is of critical importance - but most of the main benefits of global warming come from rising temperatures - not from avoiding falling ones.
The Earth won't suffer "desertification". The temperature rises are concentrated around the poles, remember. Rather, rainfall will increase, greening the planet as it warms up.
"An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts." - Geophysical Research Letters 34: L06805
For the opposite perspective, see the "Worlds deserts getting greener despite global warming" article.
Anyway, the direct effect of warming isn't the only effect - humans seem likely to coordinate to get rid of the world's deserts via irrigation projects, global warming or no.
That's an argument from wishful thinking. To *me* it "seems likely" that you're deluding yourself. Also, googling for that article and following it to the BBC site demonstrates it is actually called "Are the deserts getting greener?" and provides the conclusion "probably not in the long-term". The IPCC disagrees with the view that global warming provides a *NET* benefit, and scientific consensus is behind their findings.
Dare to misquote it? No, I paraphrased it. However, given your total misrepresentation of the conclusion (and inability to get the actual title right, as I pointed out), I can see why you'd say that. If you reread the article, you'll see it primarily describes the efforts gone to by Egyptians to reclaim parts of the Sahara. Efforts which require a great expenditure of energy, and thus the CO2 involved.
It is best not to use quotation marks when paraphrasing. People might think you were citing the original material. It is especially bad when the paraphrasing misrepresents the article. *I* didn't misrepresent the article *or* get its title wrong.
You called it "Worlds deserts getting greener despite global warming" the article is called "Are the deserts getting greener?"
Your representation of it was that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 was making the deserts greener. The closest the article comes to stating that is: "Global warming may be greening the desert in small, barely measurable ways" and THAT was just a segue from "It's not greening yet" earlier in the article.
Youtube's eating the link to it, presumably thinking it is spam. However, if you google for the exact article title as I stated it, the first link should be to the correct story on the BBC news website.
There is no BBC article of that name; googling that name only provides articles in the Times of India which are reporting on the BBC article, which is named as I stated. Google for the two phrases verbatim and you'll see.
You obviously skipped over the bits about rainfall.
Deserts are an ice age phenomenon. A warming planet will lead to more rainfall and so fewer deserts. E.g. see: "Sahara Desert Greening, Thanks to Global Warming".
"The heating of the Earth would result in more evaporation of the oceans, in turn resulting in more rainfall" - the statements of one man in an interview; not the conclusions of a scientific paper. However, let's scroll down that article. "Droughts (...) have had the effect of driving [people] into the towns and cities. Such movement (...) suggests weather patterns are becoming dryer and harsher."
Global warming increasing evaporation (and thus rainfall) is not just "the statements of one man in an interview". It is climate science 101. If you don't even know that, it is puzzling why you think you know enough to debate on this topic in public.
Increase in evaporation is not directly proportional to an increase in rainfall. Warmer temperatures reduce the level of condensation (and thus rainfall) proportional to the increase in evaporation. Combined with the fact that weather patterns mean that rain fall is not evenly distributed, you end up with confounding variables to the facile assertion that 'hotter temperatures mean greener deserts'. THAT is climate science 101, and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Warmer temperatures do not *reduce* the level of rainfall. They *increase* it. There is more water vapor in the atmosphere - and more rain. See articles like: "Man-made global warming increases rainfall" and "Intense rainfall due to global warming could raise flood risk".
You miss the point, partly due to me having to trim my argument down into tiny 500 character sound-bites. My point about the interview was that the one statement, while inscrutable, does not support the underlying premise tmtyler was making, a premise contradicted by sources I cited above. More water vapour in the air does not mean that it will be precipitated in a beneficial manner, as one of your links agrees.
Furthermore, I did not say it "reduced" the level of rainfall. I said warmer temperatures reduce the rate of condensation. So while the volume of water in the atmosphere goes up, and that means there is more water to rain down in total, that increased quantity of rainfall represents the release of a smaller percentage of the water in the atmosphere. Now, Mr Climatology 101, what sort of effect do you think a massive change in humidity has to the established weather patterns societies rely on?
We have quite a lot of information about the effects of high humidity levels - since humidity in greenhouses is often increased artificially using fogging systems in order to promote plant growth. However, on the downside, heavy, moist air will mean more storms.
Yes and no, if you feel capable of inferring changes to global weather patterns from hanging around in a greenhouse; by all means share your wisdom and I'll put away the calf's liver I was using to divine the weather. And not only does it mean "more storms", the formation of additional storms means a change in wind patterns due to a different rate of convection, and thus a redistribution of rain. And rain on uncultivated lands while the planet's bread-bins dry up is bad news for civilisation.
Sure there will be some pain if the climate changes. We must heat up the planet, though - to prevent reglaciation.
A dramatically unstable climate is an ice-age phenomenon (caused largely by positive feedback from ice albedo). If you want a stable climate, you must first take the planet out of the freezer.
If by "some pain" you mean the distinct possibility that positive feedback in global warming will result in the planet turning into a Venusian cauldron, Venus being an example of positive feedbacks in global warming.
'The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F). This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance."'
yea because we have lots of sulfur dioxide. And when life first started co2 was 7000ppm and we had a run away greenhouse effect and we are all imagining this life because, earth is really a fire ball like Venus.
Actually, increasing levels of sulphur dioxide due to the growth of industry caused increases of the "acid rain" phenomenon, and it is only EPA legislation that has caused the figures to go back down.
However, that is beside the point. As you seem to have ignored, and have failed to research, Venus is believed to have had an Earth-like atmosphere 4 billion years ago. The high levels of SO2 are not an initial requirement for runaway global warming, but a positive feedback that occurs with it.
Because the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect that makes the Earth uninhabitable is a fantasy - generated by those who would spread alarm about global warming for the sake of increasing their own fame, status or research budget - and those duped into thinking they are helping their friends and neighbour by alerting them to a real and important danger.
DOOM is the most frequently-repeated false prediction of all time.
"DOOM is the most frequently-repeated false prediction of all time." - Ironic coming from the person stating that our present climate is "horrific" and trying to start a crusade to prevent re-glaciation. But considering your research budget is 0, I can see why you'd be so confident in your own idle speculations.
The fact that you straight-facedly break out your mystic eightball and then deride the predictions of qualified scientists is laughable. Next tell us about the Illuminati's role in it.
For a nexus of complicated reasons that can't fairly be summed up in a 500 character post; feel free to research it yourself instead of spouting off your opinion without knowing the facts. One of the key reasons is the Earth's magnetic field protecting it from solar winds; something that is overdue for a (temporary) change. Another is the relative positions of the landmasses; another is the different floral species around back then; another is the concentration of OTHER gasses in the air.
You want me to explain a complex nexus of interrelated reasons in a post of 500 characters? When you could just do some research yourself instead of spouting off your opinion without any of the facts? Pfft. Let's start with: Different solar, geographic, atmospheric, biological, geomotive (rotational and orbital) and climatological conditions from the present, yah?
Also, when "life first started" there was little to no Oxygen in the atmosphere; what you are talking about is when "complicated lifeforms" (mainly burrowing molluscs) first appeared. If you want to live the life of plankton or an invertebrate then be my guest; I don't think you'd find it too comfortable though.
As some theories state life started in hydrothermal vents rich with methane and ammonia; can we take it you advocate us all breathing farts and drinking cleaning products?
And not when humans lived at all. Wikipedia "the age of mammals" and you'll see that it is in conjunction with global *cooling* that mammals flourished; and with falling levels of CO2 that biodiversity and the proliferation of early modern man (and his direct ancestors) thrived. If we look at the advent of land-walking creatures, you'll notice it coincides with the rapid decrease in CO2 frequency from the 7000ppm figure you cited, dropping by nearly 50% to just Cambrian levels.
You really need to come to terms with your personal bias on this subject. The fact that you have turned ice albedo feedback into some sort of super-deity to be feared; and yet are enamoured by positive-feedback in warming systems (increased levels of water vapour, the collapse of CO2 sinks, the destruction of ecosystems which provide negative feedback, etc etc) can only be put down to taking sides, and that is pretty childish.
That's a feeble, straw-man caricature of my position. It is you bringing up "super-deities", not I.
I want to put an end to the nightmarish ice-age the planet is trapped in - due to adverse continental positions. That is a perfectly sensible thing to want - and does not imply that I am biased or childish.
You might find the conditions mankind evolved, thrived, and proliferated in to be "nightmarish", but very few other people do, including climatologists. The definition of ice-age you are using has "the presence of Antarctica" as its sole criterion. According to your position if we dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to melt Antarctica we'll be out of an ice-age and thus the climate will stabilise and everything will be rosey. That's unscientific unfounded BS of the first order.
You don't seem to think reglaciation would be so bad. To clarify, I think a huge ice sheet covering north America and Europe would be a far worse catastrophe for the planet than anything global warming is likely to produce. Warm climates are good - living systems thrive in them. Anyone valuing the glacial world highly needs to carefully review their position, IMO - reglaciation would represent appalling devastation.
Given the uncertainties about the timing, locations, and extent of glaciation; yes, I don't think it would be so bad. Consider "the little ice age" or pre-Holocene conditions. And given that your bias means you ignore the risks of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse where NO life could survive, I think perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position. There are worst-case scenarios for each extreme, and you only (and zealously) fixate on one of them.
I don't spend much time on the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse - simply because that is a ridiculous far-future fantasy.
Call us again when CO2 levels climb back to somewhere near their *normal* levels, and we can talk again then.
In the midst of a horrifying ice age - with adverse continental positions - the planet getting too hot is the last of our worries.
For the fiftieth bloody time, your usage of the term "normal" to describe conditions humans have never encountered on a planet whose geography was alien to our current one is asinine; as is you using the word "horrifying" to describe the very conditions humanity was born, grew and has proliferated in. If you weren't such a self-important ass, you'd see how far from reality your assessment of the situation really is.
"I don't spend much time on the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse - simply because that is a ridiculous far-future fantasy."
It is not a "fantasy", Venus, "Earth's twin", owes its hellish atmosphere to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Under the right conditions it is perfectly possible that positive feedback from a diverse multitude of sources could bring about the same results on Earth.
If the permitted interventions include dumping Venus's atmosphere on Earth and then pushing it 41 million km nearer the sun, then I suppose anything is possible - but hopefully you see what I mean about ridiculous far-future fantasies.
Current thinking is that 4 billion years ago Venus's atmospheric conditions were similar to Earth's; Venus's lack of a magnetic field is thought to be the key factor in the runaway greenhouse effect that makes its conditions so inhospitable; NOT its proximity to the Sun, which can be accounted for as a contributing factor and isolated as a variable. A magnetic field inversion on Earth could cause similar exponential damage if catalysed by artificially high greenhouse gases.
Actually geomagnetic reversals occur every 400,000 years or so, and cause only relatively minor damage, including with the much higher CO2 levels that are normal on the planet.
See, here's why you're on the receiving end of the ad hominems; you just won't listen. How many times have I called you out on your arbitrary use of the term "normal"? And yet here you are trotting it out yet again as if repetition of your opinion will somehow morph it into objective fact.
Today's CO2 levels are abnormally low relative to that period. More than 90% of the time since animals evolved, the level of CO2 was much higher than it is now.
So your definition of "normal" is an arbitrary preference for the existence of molluscs? You're right, that's not rocket science, that's not even scientific; it's cherry picking.
Complicated life started then because of the previously non-existent formation of Oxygen.
If you examine
Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.svg notice how biodiversity is in direct opposition to the increasing CO2 levels. As soon as Oxygen is available, life develops. As CO2 falls, biodiversity increases.
Re: Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.svg and "As CO2 falls, biodiversity increases". What garbage. Anyone can look at those graphs and see what nonsense you are talking, you know.
Nonsense? Are you blind or stupid? Get the two graphs, resize the browser windows so you can have one above the other, and then notice how similar the two trends are, the level of carbon being inversely proportionate to the level of biodiversity. Failing that, concentrate on the level of biodiversity over the last 30 "horrific" million years, and compare it to the level of biodiversity during the "idyllic" high carbon periods you fetishise.
The graphs seem mostly uncorrelated to me. For example 300-400 MYA shows both falling.
As for recent biodiversity, that's probably an artefact of the ease of discovery of the most recent orgainisms. To quote from the source of the data "the sharp rise towards the present might be driven by the greater availability and study of recent sections" Basically, "recent" trends in this data should probably be ignored - because of the severe technical problems with compensating for this effect.
When deciding what is "normal", why pick a start date that involves climatological, geographic, solar and ecological conditions that are totally alien to us? You don't pick the existence of legged land-dwellers as a start point, nor the rise of mammals, nor a geological feature. Why not go the whole hog and point to the prevalence of carbon-consuming extremophiles as evidence for the bounteous conditions we should be striving for? Make Earth a black smoker, as that is how life here started.
"During some periods of geologic time (e.g. Cretaceous Long Normal), the Earth's magnetic field is observed to maintain a single orientation for tens of millions of years"
You claim *I* am in a muddle, and then cite a figure (400,000 years) as being representative of "normal [conditions] on the planet", when the higher levels of CO2 found historically (Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic) coincide with geomagnetic quiet periods of Ma.
I was talking about the current rate - e.g. "No fewer than 51 reversals occurred in a 12-million-year period, centering on 15 million years ago. " Not that the exact rate makes much difference to the point.
So you weren't talking about the "normal" conditions on the planet, then? Despite specifically using the term "normal" in the same breath, which you have consistently (although arbitrarily) applied to the entire phanerozoic period?
Still sounds like you are in a muddle; that or desperately trying to shift the goalposts left right and centre because you've come to the unfortunate realisation that "normal" is meaningless when looking at that scale.
"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance." - Wiki
What if earth gets cold and freezes and every thing evaporates off and we end up like mars?
Or worse neptune? what if little green men come. see the point no one knows with certainty and you still eat meat and still drive to work and passing cap and trade to add $100 to the utility bill isn't going to make you turn your heat off in the winter. so what is your point hypothetical answer only please
Venus is often described as "Earth's twin"; its size is very similar. Mars is as close in size to the moon as it is to Earth. This disparity in size causes means a significant change in atmospheric density due to gravity. Although there is a higher concentration of CO2 on Mars, its atmosphere is significantly less dense.
Thus Venus is a more accurate analogue to Earth than Mars. I am sure you are well aware of how alien conditions of Neptune are compared to Earth.
Given that the advent of "adverse continental positions" we currently enjoy today started 130 Ma ago; over twice the length of time as the current "Age of Mammals"; excuse me if I treat your definition of it as "horrific" with a healthy dose of scepticism. "But as the forests began to recede and the climate began to cool, other mammals took over." - well let's up the temperature and undo all of that good work... Moron.
You seem to have taken up ad hominen attacks. Those reflect poorly on those engaging in them. I recommend sticking to the issues rather than flinging insults around. I don't normally waste much time on those who think such forms of argument represent acceptable conduct.
I gave up on reasoned discourse when you repeatedly ignored my concise rebuttals of your assertions and continued mouthing your empty memes about "yoyo-ing climate", etc etc. The fact that you make bizarre predictions about what will unfold tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years distance; and in the same breath criticise the most up to date scientific models of climate change over just a century, says all that needs to be said on the subject. The rest is just gravy.
The fact that you were corrected on your misunderstanding of the formation, nature, warming properties, and conditions of Venus's atmosphere; and yet repeated a dozen times the same errors you first made despite this; is just one reason why I do not consider you to be worthy of further discourse. *I* do not normally waste much time on those who think that their ill-informed opinions on a subject are more authoritative than encyclopaedic fact. Consider yourself privileged.
Of course it is *me* in the muddle; despite you jumping around different time-frames and making bizarre predictions based on an ever-shifting set of parameters which are seldom in agreement with a coherent geological picture. Feel free to run away from this now if you like. Here, I'll even call you a self-important pretentious bore, whose patchwork understanding of science is an embarrassment to autodidacts everywhere so you can put your retreat down to my rudeness.
The opening of the Tasmanian Gateway and the Drake Passage changed the topology of the continents, though - around 30-40 MYA - inhibiting the Antarctic currents - around the time the recent problems with the ice caps began.
Which "problems with the ice-caps" would these be? The ones that coincided with the age of the mammals and saw hominids and primates thrive and evolve into modern humans? What a "horrific" problem. Or is this the problem of 100,000 year glacial cycles through which humanity was born, grew, developed and prospered?
Three days I've rubbed this in your face, and for three days all you've done is huff and puff. Is it any wonder that I resort to ad hominems when your posts lack any substance?
People can define "ice age" so that it started only three million years ago - for all I care. It really makes little difference to me.
Either way, the planet is still in the grip of a horrifying ice age, and is at serious risk of reglaciation - *unless* we intervene in the climate system and take steps to heat up the planet.
"Horrifying" in that it is the only conditions in which modern man or their direct ancestors, or even intelligent life of any sort, have existed in? Or horrifying in that re-glaciation of the sort you describe could possibly occur after the entire duration of human civilisation is repeated five times over? And that is more horrifying that the very real possibility of climate change causing civilisation to break-down within a couple of centuries? PRIORITIES MAN!
Civilisation is not going to "break-down" as a result of global warming. That's fear mongering peddled by those who stand to benefit from the resulting scare.
Those doing climate research - and the like. In case you hadn't noticed, research often produces findings that promote additional funding.
"Civilisation is not going to "break-down" as a result of global warming." Well, good to know that an Internet chump whose entire philosophy on the subject consists of a misrepresentation of a handful of highly contested articles featured in a couple of broadsheets and New Scientist magazine, apparently selected only on the criteria that "it sounds good to him" knows more than every major scientific body in the world. Oh, I forgot, the IPCC are trying to deceive you, part of the NWO... Pfft.
The causal factors at work behind the glacial cycle are numerous, and inter-related. Suggesting that dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the temperature to "magically level out" at a convenient tropical level (itself a myth, tropical levels are inconvenient in a number of ways) is totally irrational. It is like trying to argue for trashing your street's water main to stop your tap from leaking. Yes, it will have the desired effect, but in a very specific and unhelpful way.
The main thing is to get out of the ice age - where the climate goes up and down like a yo-yo - due to positive feedback. My view (and that of many scientists) is that CO2 might help significantly with that. Some scientists even think that CO2 has already prevented reglaciation!
We will have a very hard time getting the planet back to normal - due to the presence of Antarctica over the pole. That is not going away soon. However, IMO, we should get as far away from the ice-age as we can.
"The main thing is to get out of the ice age - where the climate goes up and down like a yo-yo - due to positive feedback."
How can it be "the main thing" if you are willing to scrap the definition of "ice-age" you have been using (the mere presence of Antarctica) because it "It really makes little difference to me."?
And again you fixate on the "yo-yo" thing. The mere fact that there is cyclical variation is NOT A BAD THING; "yo-yoing" between summer and winter is vital for life on Earth.
By 'normal' you mean conditions that not only man, but also many of his non-sapiens ancestors, would never have experienced? Conditions that no intelligent species has ever experienced or involved in? Conditions where the arrangement of the continents were totally alien to us? Bizarre usage of the term "normal".
America, you are terrifying.
I am ashamed to live next to you.
adammerlinsmith 3 months ago
Vote for Pedro!
leproto2 8 months ago
Classic misunderstanding of basic sciences ...
First i though that was a joke or parody. Then i think it was much too big to be believe. Then i came on youtube ....
londoner5 8 months ago
I see 432 dislikes. thats telling me theres at least 432 people who are uneducated in how ecosystems and plant biology works. I for one have my career and passion in these two fields. and for years i have been smiling about the amount of CO2.
You have been preprogrammed through media to beleive that CO2 is destructive. Trees are also our natural temperature regulators. you cut down the trees, and you will get hotter and cooler extremes. f*ck climate change, get off your ass and plant a tree
KanadianKain 8 months ago
@KanadianKain this video was made by and paid for by an oil executive named H Leighton Steward from Houston associated with Conocophillips petroleum company. You like a video made by an oil tycoon targeted at idiots to contact their senator to help oil companies make more profits. Know what that makes you? An idiot.
nerfmyaccount 7 months ago
Fuck this video. Propaganda is so 20 century.
Maasa1990 8 months ago 2
Follow the money, A pesticide manufacturer has every incentive to convince people their product is effective and safe to use, even if it isn't true.
The SAME is true of a lot of the big names pushing carbon controls. Al Gore for instance stands to GAIN a lot from carbon trading, and LOSE a lot otherwise, as the technology isn't yet potent enough to support much on it's own.
kendaigmj 9 months ago
A new study has found that co2 mixed with water vapour cools the planet. The greenhouse theory has been debunked by a team of scientists . Time to end the idiotic theory now?
david222444 9 months ago
Haven't these fuckwits heard of global or has the amount it will cost them caused them to put their heads in the sand.
89Lumpy 10 months ago
Can you only thumbs down something once?
neshannockfez 1 year ago
their slogan paid for their viewpoint, Hmm?
quasarmeister 1 year ago
All right guys believe me I ain't fooling no one. I know what I'm talking about.
The guys behind this ad are evil geniuses basically. Co2 is ESSENTIAL for plants because of the photosynthesis, the basis of their survival, with no plants no life, they are right.
Here is the part they don't want you to know: Too much Co2 FUCKS UP the atmosphere, not the wild life directly. But once you fuck with the atmosphere you are indirectly DESTROYING every ecossistem cause everysingle specie needs air right?
Joker9588 1 year ago
‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.’
signed by 31,000 scientists
birminghamb1ues 1 year ago 3
@birminghamb1ues Many of which weren't real people. Many of which didn't have an actual bachelor's degree. Many of which were not active contributors to their fields. Many of which were not climate scientists.
That's been debunked looooong ago. Look more deeply into it and you will see.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
If c02 is good when there's the right amount of it then shouldn't we say that too much c02 is bad instead of calling c02 pollution? Too much water is bad but no one calls water pollution. I know c02 is a gas but it's not pollution. Too much c02 is pollution.
HRbluetiger07 1 year ago
I agree, lets continue polluting the earth and continue to brain wash dumb americans.
tr0llerguy 1 year ago
Well, if people keep cutting the whole rainforest, CO2 will be very useful for our earth. There CO2 is not a pollutant. *sarcasm off*
simcityfaan 1 year ago
Propaganda garbage designed to sway the weak, stupid and ill-informed.
It's sad and pathetic what some people will do to be able to keep selling their poisonous oil/gasoline. If you want to strike a blow for good buy an electric car.
DavidFilmore 1 year ago 7
Small amounts arent ok: put a plastic bag around your head and see what happens :P
welcometoskyvalley 1 year ago 3
PUBLIC RELATIONS FAIL
Shinkotaty 1 year ago
my farts are green
sheepcidus 1 year ago
The message of this video is that rising CO2 levels do NOT cause global warming. This is true. If we can stop worrying about global warming, we can focus on really important enviornmental issues such as destruction of the oceans through pollution and factory fishing, destruction of rain forests. Also, we should switch to ethanol to fuel our vehicles because it is cleaner, and can put our farmers to work. Imagine how clean our cities would be with no diesel or gas pollution in the air! Go Ethanol
originalcause 1 year ago
"Pollution" of oceans includes acidification. Acidification is caused by too high levels of CO2. So please do your homework and study how our earth system works.
MIClimate 1 year ago
@MIClimate Global warming releases CO2 from the oceans so you support it?
kentuckydan 1 year ago
@kentuckydan I was responding to "original cause" and trying to tell her, that rising CO2-levels are causing destruction of oceans by acidification, which is pollution as well. Of course I do not "support" global warning. The "CO2 is green-ad" is propaganda in the best tradition of Goebbels. Telling the absurdest possible lies and selling them as patriotic truths. Disgusting, as I may say so.
MIClimate 1 year ago
I guess if a sympathetic sounding voice would tell Americans that suicide creates job opportunities and revenue they would go out and hang themselves.
MIClimate 2 years ago 3
@MIClimate Strom Thurmond was an advocate for just that! My, how ahead of his time he was!
phrexus 1 year ago
Everyone ever read "animal farm"? This is an animal farm advert. Huge amounts of CO2 in the oceans are so so wundervoll, jawoll. Creepy propaganda.
MIClimate 2 years ago
@MIClimate then you support global warming which releases CO2 from the oceans?
kentuckydan 1 year ago
global warming is a fraud. why dont you CO2 haters google the hacked ipcc emails that expose gw for what it is, a way to rob us of billions through carbon trading. ohhh thank you so much al whore
mbartlett44 2 years ago
This is the biggest load of horse shit I have ever seen. These lobbyists just went against simple scientific knowledge.
skyclaw441 2 years ago
A little warming and more people will live underwater.
A little warming and rice won't grow anymore. But that's ok since two more states in the US will be able to grow wheat too.
Dumbass. Global warming won't help anymone.
Mejuko 2 years ago
CO2 is a good thing for the earth.
The more CO2, the more bio-diversity in plant life.
A little Warming would also be good.
A little warming and more parts of the earth would be able to grow crops.
When did they stop teaching Kids about how plants work?
When i was in 2nd grade i learned that CO2 was a good thing, and plans NEED CO2.
TKainZero 2 years ago
Yeh, but actually after a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plants arent able to actually process it and just suffocate as any other living thing on earth would :/ too bad they dont teach that in school!
Oscarum 2 years ago
You're so right! *sarcasm* We need water too, so let's drown the earth?
GameSiphon 1 year ago 3
I'm gonna clear up a misconception here.
Co2 alone isn't bad. Without Co2, we'd all be dead. However, it is the extent to which CO2 exists. In the status quo, the amount of CO2 is overwhelming and hence is dangerous to life on earth.
master2nr 2 years ago 18
@master2nr Very true and it is also true that when CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher than now the biosphere was far more prolific than now,
We live in one of the coolest, driest, most CO2 deprived times of the last 500 million years and compared to previous eras when CO2 levels were much higher the present biosphere is an ecollogical desert
kentuckydan 1 year ago
@kentuckydan Finally some one who gets it a rare find these days.
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@master2nr Thanks for trying to clear up a misconception here, but you appear to be simply repeating what someone else has told you. Please provide your own observational evidence. To which extent is CO2 dangerous? Please provide evidence showing a certain CO2 concentration and its effects on the environment.
HowToChangeTheWorld 1 year ago
@master2nr 7,000ppm when life exploded on earth 150ppm the lowest it has been on earth 350ppm and slowly rising. No need to worry yet. In context it is at low end of spectrum
Plants grow optimally at 1200ppm -1500ppm
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@master2nr That is clear as mud do you contend that during the last 500 milliion years when CO2 levesl were FAR greater than now it was dangerous to life on Earth,
Is THAT why the dinosaurs died out? L:OL
kentuckydan 1 year ago
@master2nr Really? How so? How is it that at 280 ppm, pre-industrial concentration is okay, but 390 ppm (0.039%) is dangerous??? really? Do you have a link?
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255 A simple search of the scientific literature will give you your answer. But I guess just repeating what you see on propoganda mills is better.
Draffut2003 1 year ago
@master2nr Dangerous to life on earth? How so? Plants thrive in CO2 rich environments and CO2 is not considered dangerous to humans until around 8000 parts per billion which is a ways to go from the current 388 ppb.
abunn21 10 months ago
CO2 is not pollution?
Well, that depends how you define "pollution" i guess :)
vman1981 2 years ago
You do know the former of that propaganda has been the president of an oil company?
rekhyt95 2 years ago
remember kids, cyanide is good for your health
GameSiphon 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
MIClimate 2 years ago
lobbyist crap ... come on
bjaxelsen 2 years ago 2
hahahaha.. lobbyist BS.
Rad1ka1 2 years ago
wake up sheeple
JackDigital 2 years ago
A butt and a fart! The former ...
fimfa 2 years ago
Stupid propaganda!
joehelmer 2 years ago
People People people , You want to be scammed . You want the elites to tax and cap the gas that comes out of your mouths so they can run our entire lives . You will all love licking boots in the New World Order that they said didn't exist but they do and that it's "good" Fucking Sheeple !
mmtot 2 years ago
We need more people to understand this. Here's a fact, volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. How do you stop that? IDIOTS!
Leatherman2009 2 years ago
Is this a f***ing joke?
Wegel123 2 years ago 3
OMFG How can u Americans be so Na-iv and dumb!??? CO2 are as poison! When the rest of the world is cutting these gases as much as they can, Americans consider it as "friendly for the environment" LOL Americans are the biggest fucking joke in the world!
FinnishFlash8 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
People People people , You want to be scammed . You want the elites to tax and cap the gas that comes out of your mouths so they can run our entire lives . You will all love licking boots in the New World Order that they said didn't exist but they do and that it's "good" Fucking Sheeple !
mmtot 2 years ago
Dude... You breath this out of your mouth! You muppet! And plants need it to survive! lol
fleecemaster 2 years ago
Republicans, cause without idiots life is boring. Republican is your friend, don´t mind shotgun... it´s legal in all states.
SammyM333 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about?????
Leatherman2009 2 years ago
REPUBLICANS, CAUSE WITHOUT IDIOTS WE WOULD HAVE BORING LIFES. Republican is your friend, don´t mind shotgun... It´s legal!
SammyM333 2 years ago
Can't people understand that just because small amounts of something is okay, that doesn't mean that large amounts are fine.
For example, we all need water to live, but too much water and we all drown.
Obviously a certain concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and healthy but too much can be a big problem.
jaxmyers 2 years ago 28
Everything has to be taken in moderation. Water is even unhealthy if you drink too much. Think about the woman a few years back that was on a radio contest to win a Wii. She died from too much water intake.
Leatherman2009 2 years ago
@jaxmyers What amount of CO2 is too much? Is 1,800 ppm too much? If so, please provide your own observations to substantiate your claim.
HowToChangeTheWorld 1 year ago
@jaxmyers 7,000ppm when life exploded on earth 150ppm the lowest it has been on earth 350ppm and slowly rising. No need to worry yet. In context it is at low end of spectrum
Plants grow optimally at 1200ppm -1500ppm
drgreenmwdf 1 year ago
@jaxmyers We live in one of the coldest most CO2 deprived eras of the last 1/2 Billion years, Previously when CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher the biosphere both Fauna and Flora were far more prolific So to put it in perspective using your paradigm the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is far lower than is naturan and healthy, Right now what we are doing is raising the temperature of the patient who does not have a Fever, but instead a severe case of Hypothermia
kentuckydan 1 year ago
@jaxmyers How much do you think is too much? RIght now we are at about 390 parts per million! Do you realize how small a percentage that is? as a deciamal, it looks like this - 0.00039, not even 4/10 of 1%.
whistler2255 1 year ago
Heh - in the news: "Prehistoric titanic-snake jungles laughed at global warming".
tmtyler 2 years ago
I'm putting a 5/5 but that's because i lost my family, land, friends, and virginity due to Oxygen. CO2 didn't do anything to prevent it, though. :S
NeverendingAbyss 2 years ago
camoon.. yes, millions years ago co2 might been much higher than nowdays, but did man existed back then? when climate is changing, it also chanse species, and in world much warmer there might not be room for mankind..
tuntematon13 2 years ago
hahaha! If is wasn't for the fact that so many people will actually believe this crap, this video would be f***ing hilarious.
Who the hell is saying CO2 is a pollutant anyway? Climate change isn't about the world getting dirty...
allalexia 2 years ago 2
The worst thing we could do would be to not interfere with the climate. That would mean reglaciation - almost for sure.
We *must* do our best to heat up the planet! The only real issues are how fast and how much.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Got any cold dihydrogen monoxide? I'd like to pour it on your head. :)
Rickyrab 2 years ago
This deliberate misinformation is appalling. A big lie is still a big lie, even if it is spoken in a suave, persuasive ad-man's voice. Climate Change Denial ought to be made a crime, just as spreading demoralizing lies was during the second world war. We face an enemy as deadly now as we did then. It's just easier to see an enemy that wears Nazi uniform. Runaway CO2 will change our way of life even more severely than Hitler would have done. We need a Winston Churchill to rally world opinion!
peterferguson95 2 years ago
Yeah ... and nobody ever walks on the moon, holocaust didn't happen and the earth is flat...
desodan 2 years ago
global warming is not being caused by humans i dont belive the media brainwash
PhobetorXVII 2 years ago
As a scientist, I find this ad abhorrant. The deliberate spreading of misinformation for god know what purpose will ultimatley be only destructive.
These "CO2 is green" people want to sent us back to the dark ages.
Hykon1234 2 years ago 4
Such bull...CO2 is neither good or bad. The planet needs balance. Life has developed with the natural amount of CO2 and not the extra amount that people behind campains like this spread into the air. Disruption of that will be sensed in everyone's lives, just like a hitch in one's house. Cause this planet is our home...And we cant move out.
Isravision 2 years ago
I think you're a bit confused as to how the carbon cycle works. plants can thrive in a purely CO2 environment so long as they are provided the necessary sunlight and water for photosynthesis to take place. Those plants in turn release O2 this is what is vital to animal life which then output CO2 again.
even if CO2 did hurt plants (which it doesn't) there are not enough fossil fuels for us to even come close to matching the amount of O2 with CO2, the plants had a head start and are better at it.
Robodude288 2 years ago
That's not the point though...And i am well aware of that system, i have learned about it...
first of all, u r wrong. Plant spread the O2 to the air before they breath is and use it again, and if the concentration of the O2 is too small for them, they'll choke (just like u btw...).
And we are not talking about O2 vs. CO2. We are talking about the fact that the planet is getting warmer and it's bad for us and very dangerous for the generations to come...
Isravision 2 years ago
well not only is your first point uncomprehendable but it's also inaccurate have a look at the formula for photosynthesis:
CO2 + H2O + Light -> C6H12O6(sugar) + O2
Plants do not use oxygen.
Your second point; while readable is misguided. The little evidence that says CO2 adds to any sort of "Global Warming" also says that the effects a negligible. while there is evidence to support a "green house" effect its mostly attributed to water vapor. It's a natural cycle we cant control it.
Robodude288 2 years ago
Of course they do...Just like they use the sugar. Or do u think they produce it for fun?
They are making their own food. We cant...That's why we eat them. Or aminals that eat them...
as for YOUR second point, it's indeed a natural cycle, but we have made it go faster and it's gonna damage us. So u can keep arguing and try to be right, or u can do what's best for u.
Have a good night\day.
Isravision 2 years ago
Also, plants most assuredly DO use Oxygen. Photosynthesis is only one half of what plants do; while they form sugars through photosynthesis during the day, at night the process reverses when the plants respire to make use of the stored chemical energy in the sugar. Its a mistake to think of them as "carbon scrubbers."
Ace42x 2 years ago 2
Yes; plants respire, however; they do this all the time not just at night. photosynthesis produces O2 at a faster rate than respiration uses it so when I said plants don't need O2 it wasn't incorrect but rather not clear because they don't need Extra O2 they make their own. Also I said a plant can thrive in a purely CO2 environment IF (and only if) they are provided the necessarily sunlight and water.
sorry I didn't make that clear. I admit my first posts were rather misleading in that sense.
Robodude288 2 years ago
Actually, I think you'll find that plant respiration increases significantly at night (when they still require energy, because they don't sleep, and thus need to raid their glucose stores for it via respiration); and the total rate of consumption is roughly equivalent to the O2 release through photosynthesis. It is, on the whole, balanced. And we know of plenty of extreme-o-philes that can survive in inhospitable climates, what does that prove?
Ace42x 2 years ago
No It doesn't increase only evidence of it because photosynthesis isn't active.
the point was that the idea that an increase in CO2 would harm plants even in the slightest is absurd as plants don't work like that.
Robodude288 2 years ago
"the idea that an increase in CO2 would harm plants even in the slightest is absurd as plants don't work like that."
Actually, CO2 induced global warming changes weather patterns, and you'd be surprised how much crops dislike freak snow-storms, droughts, etc. Even a gradual increase in net rainfall can increase levels of pestilence in crops. One example is the propagation of potato blight, which famously caused the great potato famine.
Ace42x 2 years ago
not related reply to upper comment
Yes but there was free range buffalo and free range (something i forget what) that roamed America and Eurasia and now there number has dwindled to nil. Not sure what loss is to gain in domesticated animals not to say it evens out as i am sure domestics higher end but not as high as one would think. Just because we evolved in colder climate doesn't mean we wouldn't survive a warmer one and a doubling of c02 still doesn't compare with dinosaurs time of c02ppm
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
The current CO2 level is *unnaturally* LOW - due to the ICE AGE.
tmtyler 2 years ago
I wouldn't go in to that you will just confuse them.
Robodude288 2 years ago
We're ignoring it because he doesn't know what he is talking about, RE: Venus. RE: the current interglacial period: "Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming" So tmtyler, in his fight against the next ice-age, something he considers a priority for humanity, would happily see us suffer desertification for 5x the history of civilisation before any benefits are apparent.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Of course avoiding reglaciation is of critical importance - but most of the main benefits of global warming come from rising temperatures - not from avoiding falling ones.
The Earth won't suffer "desertification". The temperature rises are concentrated around the poles, remember. Rather, rainfall will increase, greening the planet as it warms up.
tmtyler 2 years ago
"An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts." - Geophysical Research Letters 34: L06805
You're full of shit.
Ace42x 2 years ago
For the opposite perspective, see the "Worlds deserts getting greener despite global warming" article.
Anyway, the direct effect of warming isn't the only effect - humans seem likely to coordinate to get rid of the world's deserts via irrigation projects, global warming or no.
tmtyler 2 years ago
That's an argument from wishful thinking. To *me* it "seems likely" that you're deluding yourself. Also, googling for that article and following it to the BBC site demonstrates it is actually called "Are the deserts getting greener?" and provides the conclusion "probably not in the long-term". The IPCC disagrees with the view that global warming provides a *NET* benefit, and scientific consensus is behind their findings.
Ace42x 2 years ago
You dare to misquote a BBC news article?
The IPCC is a climate change scaremongering operation. The worse their predictions are the more funding they get.
There is no "scientific consensus" on the value of global warming. Science simply doesn't deal with values.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Dare to misquote it? No, I paraphrased it. However, given your total misrepresentation of the conclusion (and inability to get the actual title right, as I pointed out), I can see why you'd say that. If you reread the article, you'll see it primarily describes the efforts gone to by Egyptians to reclaim parts of the Sahara. Efforts which require a great expenditure of energy, and thus the CO2 involved.
Ace42x 2 years ago
It is best not to use quotation marks when paraphrasing. People might think you were citing the original material. It is especially bad when the paraphrasing misrepresents the article. *I* didn't misrepresent the article *or* get its title wrong.
tmtyler 2 years ago
You called it "Worlds deserts getting greener despite global warming" the article is called "Are the deserts getting greener?"
Your representation of it was that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 was making the deserts greener. The closest the article comes to stating that is: "Global warming may be greening the desert in small, barely measurable ways" and THAT was just a segue from "It's not greening yet" earlier in the article.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Youtube's eating the link to it, presumably thinking it is spam. However, if you google for the exact article title as I stated it, the first link should be to the correct story on the BBC news website.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The article I cited was entitled "Worlds deserts getting greener despite global warming" - exactly as I stated.
tmtyler 2 years ago
There is no BBC article of that name; googling that name only provides articles in the Times of India which are reporting on the BBC article, which is named as I stated. Google for the two phrases verbatim and you'll see.
Ace42x 2 years ago
I never said there was a BBC news article of that name!
Please, get a grip! Rarely have I seen someone get into such a mess by muddling two news articles together.
tmtyler 2 years ago
You obviously skipped over the bits about rainfall.
Deserts are an ice age phenomenon. A warming planet will lead to more rainfall and so fewer deserts. E.g. see: "Sahara Desert Greening, Thanks to Global Warming".
tmtyler 2 years ago
"The heating of the Earth would result in more evaporation of the oceans, in turn resulting in more rainfall" - the statements of one man in an interview; not the conclusions of a scientific paper. However, let's scroll down that article. "Droughts (...) have had the effect of driving [people] into the towns and cities. Such movement (...) suggests weather patterns are becoming dryer and harsher."
Ace42x 2 years ago
Global warming increasing evaporation (and thus rainfall) is not just "the statements of one man in an interview". It is climate science 101. If you don't even know that, it is puzzling why you think you know enough to debate on this topic in public.
dostrame 2 years ago
Increase in evaporation is not directly proportional to an increase in rainfall. Warmer temperatures reduce the level of condensation (and thus rainfall) proportional to the increase in evaporation. Combined with the fact that weather patterns mean that rain fall is not evenly distributed, you end up with confounding variables to the facile assertion that 'hotter temperatures mean greener deserts'. THAT is climate science 101, and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Warmer temperatures do not *reduce* the level of rainfall. They *increase* it. There is more water vapor in the atmosphere - and more rain. See articles like: "Man-made global warming increases rainfall" and "Intense rainfall due to global warming could raise flood risk".
dostrame 2 years ago
You miss the point, partly due to me having to trim my argument down into tiny 500 character sound-bites. My point about the interview was that the one statement, while inscrutable, does not support the underlying premise tmtyler was making, a premise contradicted by sources I cited above. More water vapour in the air does not mean that it will be precipitated in a beneficial manner, as one of your links agrees.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Furthermore, I did not say it "reduced" the level of rainfall. I said warmer temperatures reduce the rate of condensation. So while the volume of water in the atmosphere goes up, and that means there is more water to rain down in total, that increased quantity of rainfall represents the release of a smaller percentage of the water in the atmosphere. Now, Mr Climatology 101, what sort of effect do you think a massive change in humidity has to the established weather patterns societies rely on?
Ace42x 2 years ago
We have quite a lot of information about the effects of high humidity levels - since humidity in greenhouses is often increased artificially using fogging systems in order to promote plant growth. However, on the downside, heavy, moist air will mean more storms.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Yes and no, if you feel capable of inferring changes to global weather patterns from hanging around in a greenhouse; by all means share your wisdom and I'll put away the calf's liver I was using to divine the weather. And not only does it mean "more storms", the formation of additional storms means a change in wind patterns due to a different rate of convection, and thus a redistribution of rain. And rain on uncultivated lands while the planet's bread-bins dry up is bad news for civilisation.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Sure there will be some pain if the climate changes. We must heat up the planet, though - to prevent reglaciation.
A dramatically unstable climate is an ice-age phenomenon (caused largely by positive feedback from ice albedo). If you want a stable climate, you must first take the planet out of the freezer.
tmtyler 2 years ago
If by "some pain" you mean the distinct possibility that positive feedback in global warming will result in the planet turning into a Venusian cauldron, Venus being an example of positive feedbacks in global warming.
Ace42x 2 years ago
venus is closer to the sun thus hotter period
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
'The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F). This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance."'
Duh.
Ace42x 2 years ago
How does mars fit in your theory now that we are comparing different planets
how does co2 have the same role.
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
Mars has 95% c02 and it is bone chilling cold so what does that have to do with Earth and Venus?
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
if earth was where Venus is, it would not be inhabited by us. With or with out c02 again your point?
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
yea because we have lots of sulfur dioxide. And when life first started co2 was 7000ppm and we had a run away greenhouse effect and we are all imagining this life because, earth is really a fire ball like Venus.
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
Actually, increasing levels of sulphur dioxide due to the growth of industry caused increases of the "acid rain" phenomenon, and it is only EPA legislation that has caused the figures to go back down.
However, that is beside the point. As you seem to have ignored, and have failed to research, Venus is believed to have had an Earth-like atmosphere 4 billion years ago. The high levels of SO2 are not an initial requirement for runaway global warming, but a positive feedback that occurs with it.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Why was there not a run away greenhouse gas effect back when it was 7000ppm or 90percent of earths history that was above current levels?
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
Because the idea of a runaway greenhouse effect that makes the Earth uninhabitable is a fantasy - generated by those who would spread alarm about global warming for the sake of increasing their own fame, status or research budget - and those duped into thinking they are helping their friends and neighbour by alerting them to a real and important danger.
DOOM is the most frequently-repeated false prediction of all time.
tmtyler 2 years ago
"DOOM is the most frequently-repeated false prediction of all time." - Ironic coming from the person stating that our present climate is "horrific" and trying to start a crusade to prevent re-glaciation. But considering your research budget is 0, I can see why you'd be so confident in your own idle speculations.
The fact that you straight-facedly break out your mystic eightball and then deride the predictions of qualified scientists is laughable. Next tell us about the Illuminati's role in it.
Ace42x 2 years ago
That wasn't a prediction, it is history. See: "The millennium and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it prophecies".
tmtyler 2 years ago
For a nexus of complicated reasons that can't fairly be summed up in a 500 character post; feel free to research it yourself instead of spouting off your opinion without knowing the facts. One of the key reasons is the Earth's magnetic field protecting it from solar winds; something that is overdue for a (temporary) change. Another is the relative positions of the landmasses; another is the different floral species around back then; another is the concentration of OTHER gasses in the air.
Ace42x 2 years ago
You want me to explain a complex nexus of interrelated reasons in a post of 500 characters? When you could just do some research yourself instead of spouting off your opinion without any of the facts? Pfft. Let's start with: Different solar, geographic, atmospheric, biological, geomotive (rotational and orbital) and climatological conditions from the present, yah?
Ace42x 2 years ago
Also, when "life first started" there was little to no Oxygen in the atmosphere; what you are talking about is when "complicated lifeforms" (mainly burrowing molluscs) first appeared. If you want to live the life of plankton or an invertebrate then be my guest; I don't think you'd find it too comfortable though.
As some theories state life started in hydrothermal vents rich with methane and ammonia; can we take it you advocate us all breathing farts and drinking cleaning products?
Ace42x 2 years ago
well 90 percent of earths history had higher ppm than present so no not just when mollusks lived
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
Indeed - CO2 levels in the Cambrian and Precambrian eras were even higher still - see:
Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg
tmtyler 2 years ago
And not when humans lived at all. Wikipedia "the age of mammals" and you'll see that it is in conjunction with global *cooling* that mammals flourished; and with falling levels of CO2 that biodiversity and the proliferation of early modern man (and his direct ancestors) thrived. If we look at the advent of land-walking creatures, you'll notice it coincides with the rapid decrease in CO2 frequency from the 7000ppm figure you cited, dropping by nearly 50% to just Cambrian levels.
Ace42x 2 years ago
You really need to come to terms with your personal bias on this subject. The fact that you have turned ice albedo feedback into some sort of super-deity to be feared; and yet are enamoured by positive-feedback in warming systems (increased levels of water vapour, the collapse of CO2 sinks, the destruction of ecosystems which provide negative feedback, etc etc) can only be put down to taking sides, and that is pretty childish.
Ace42x 2 years ago
That's a feeble, straw-man caricature of my position. It is you bringing up "super-deities", not I.
I want to put an end to the nightmarish ice-age the planet is trapped in - due to adverse continental positions. That is a perfectly sensible thing to want - and does not imply that I am biased or childish.
tmtyler 2 years ago
You might find the conditions mankind evolved, thrived, and proliferated in to be "nightmarish", but very few other people do, including climatologists. The definition of ice-age you are using has "the presence of Antarctica" as its sole criterion. According to your position if we dump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to melt Antarctica we'll be out of an ice-age and thus the climate will stabilise and everything will be rosey. That's unscientific unfounded BS of the first order.
Ace42x 2 years ago
You don't seem to think reglaciation would be so bad. To clarify, I think a huge ice sheet covering north America and Europe would be a far worse catastrophe for the planet than anything global warming is likely to produce. Warm climates are good - living systems thrive in them. Anyone valuing the glacial world highly needs to carefully review their position, IMO - reglaciation would represent appalling devastation.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Given the uncertainties about the timing, locations, and extent of glaciation; yes, I don't think it would be so bad. Consider "the little ice age" or pre-Holocene conditions. And given that your bias means you ignore the risks of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse where NO life could survive, I think perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position. There are worst-case scenarios for each extreme, and you only (and zealously) fixate on one of them.
Ace42x 2 years ago
I don't spend much time on the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse - simply because that is a ridiculous far-future fantasy.
Call us again when CO2 levels climb back to somewhere near their *normal* levels, and we can talk again then.
In the midst of a horrifying ice age - with adverse continental positions - the planet getting too hot is the last of our worries.
tmtyler 2 years ago
For the fiftieth bloody time, your usage of the term "normal" to describe conditions humans have never encountered on a planet whose geography was alien to our current one is asinine; as is you using the word "horrifying" to describe the very conditions humanity was born, grew and has proliferated in. If you weren't such a self-important ass, you'd see how far from reality your assessment of the situation really is.
Ace42x 2 years ago
"I don't spend much time on the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect causing Venusian like apocalypse - simply because that is a ridiculous far-future fantasy."
It is not a "fantasy", Venus, "Earth's twin", owes its hellish atmosphere to a runaway greenhouse effect caused by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Under the right conditions it is perfectly possible that positive feedback from a diverse multitude of sources could bring about the same results on Earth.
Ace42x 2 years ago
If the permitted interventions include dumping Venus's atmosphere on Earth and then pushing it 41 million km nearer the sun, then I suppose anything is possible - but hopefully you see what I mean about ridiculous far-future fantasies.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Current thinking is that 4 billion years ago Venus's atmospheric conditions were similar to Earth's; Venus's lack of a magnetic field is thought to be the key factor in the runaway greenhouse effect that makes its conditions so inhospitable; NOT its proximity to the Sun, which can be accounted for as a contributing factor and isolated as a variable. A magnetic field inversion on Earth could cause similar exponential damage if catalysed by artificially high greenhouse gases.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Actually geomagnetic reversals occur every 400,000 years or so, and cause only relatively minor damage, including with the much higher CO2 levels that are normal on the planet.
tmtyler 2 years ago
See, here's why you're on the receiving end of the ad hominems; you just won't listen. How many times have I called you out on your arbitrary use of the term "normal"? And yet here you are trotting it out yet again as if repetition of your opinion will somehow morph it into objective fact.
Ace42x 2 years ago
This is not rocket science. Check with:
Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Today's CO2 levels are abnormally low relative to that period. More than 90% of the time since animals evolved, the level of CO2 was much higher than it is now.
tmtyler 2 years ago
So your definition of "normal" is an arbitrary preference for the existence of molluscs? You're right, that's not rocket science, that's not even scientific; it's cherry picking.
Complicated life started then because of the previously non-existent formation of Oxygen.
If you examine
Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.svg notice how biodiversity is in direct opposition to the increasing CO2 levels. As soon as Oxygen is available, life develops. As CO2 falls, biodiversity increases.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Re: Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.svg and "As CO2 falls, biodiversity increases". What garbage. Anyone can look at those graphs and see what nonsense you are talking, you know.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Nonsense? Are you blind or stupid? Get the two graphs, resize the browser windows so you can have one above the other, and then notice how similar the two trends are, the level of carbon being inversely proportionate to the level of biodiversity. Failing that, concentrate on the level of biodiversity over the last 30 "horrific" million years, and compare it to the level of biodiversity during the "idyllic" high carbon periods you fetishise.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The graphs seem mostly uncorrelated to me. For example 300-400 MYA shows both falling.
As for recent biodiversity, that's probably an artefact of the ease of discovery of the most recent orgainisms. To quote from the source of the data "the sharp rise towards the present might be driven by the greater availability and study of recent sections" Basically, "recent" trends in this data should probably be ignored - because of the severe technical problems with compensating for this effect.
tmtyler 2 years ago
When deciding what is "normal", why pick a start date that involves climatological, geographic, solar and ecological conditions that are totally alien to us? You don't pick the existence of legged land-dwellers as a start point, nor the rise of mammals, nor a geological feature. Why not go the whole hog and point to the prevalence of carbon-consuming extremophiles as evidence for the bounteous conditions we should be striving for? Make Earth a black smoker, as that is how life here started.
Ace42x 2 years ago
"During some periods of geologic time (e.g. Cretaceous Long Normal), the Earth's magnetic field is observed to maintain a single orientation for tens of millions of years"
You claim *I* am in a muddle, and then cite a figure (400,000 years) as being representative of "normal [conditions] on the planet", when the higher levels of CO2 found historically (Cambrian, Jurassic, Triassic) coincide with geomagnetic quiet periods of Ma.
Ace42x 2 years ago
I was talking about the current rate - e.g. "No fewer than 51 reversals occurred in a 12-million-year period, centering on 15 million years ago. " Not that the exact rate makes much difference to the point.
tmtyler 2 years ago
So you weren't talking about the "normal" conditions on the planet, then? Despite specifically using the term "normal" in the same breath, which you have consistently (although arbitrarily) applied to the entire phanerozoic period?
Still sounds like you are in a muddle; that or desperately trying to shift the goalposts left right and centre because you've come to the unfortunate realisation that "normal" is meaningless when looking at that scale.
Ace42x 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance." - Wiki
Ace42x 2 years ago
What if earth gets cold and freezes and every thing evaporates off and we end up like mars?
Or worse neptune? what if little green men come. see the point no one knows with certainty and you still eat meat and still drive to work and passing cap and trade to add $100 to the utility bill isn't going to make you turn your heat off in the winter. so what is your point hypothetical answer only please
drgreenmwdf 2 years ago
Venus is often described as "Earth's twin"; its size is very similar. Mars is as close in size to the moon as it is to Earth. This disparity in size causes means a significant change in atmospheric density due to gravity. Although there is a higher concentration of CO2 on Mars, its atmosphere is significantly less dense.
Thus Venus is a more accurate analogue to Earth than Mars. I am sure you are well aware of how alien conditions of Neptune are compared to Earth.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Given that the advent of "adverse continental positions" we currently enjoy today started 130 Ma ago; over twice the length of time as the current "Age of Mammals"; excuse me if I treat your definition of it as "horrific" with a healthy dose of scepticism. "But as the forests began to recede and the climate began to cool, other mammals took over." - well let's up the temperature and undo all of that good work... Moron.
Ace42x 2 years ago
You seem to have taken up ad hominen attacks. Those reflect poorly on those engaging in them. I recommend sticking to the issues rather than flinging insults around. I don't normally waste much time on those who think such forms of argument represent acceptable conduct.
tmtyler 2 years ago
I gave up on reasoned discourse when you repeatedly ignored my concise rebuttals of your assertions and continued mouthing your empty memes about "yoyo-ing climate", etc etc. The fact that you make bizarre predictions about what will unfold tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years distance; and in the same breath criticise the most up to date scientific models of climate change over just a century, says all that needs to be said on the subject. The rest is just gravy.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The fact that you were corrected on your misunderstanding of the formation, nature, warming properties, and conditions of Venus's atmosphere; and yet repeated a dozen times the same errors you first made despite this; is just one reason why I do not consider you to be worthy of further discourse. *I* do not normally waste much time on those who think that their ill-informed opinions on a subject are more authoritative than encyclopaedic fact. Consider yourself privileged.
Ace42x 2 years ago
Alas, you seem in too much of a muddle about what I think for me to bother with correcting you.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Of course it is *me* in the muddle; despite you jumping around different time-frames and making bizarre predictions based on an ever-shifting set of parameters which are seldom in agreement with a coherent geological picture. Feel free to run away from this now if you like. Here, I'll even call you a self-important pretentious bore, whose patchwork understanding of science is an embarrassment to autodidacts everywhere so you can put your retreat down to my rudeness.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The opening of the Tasmanian Gateway and the Drake Passage changed the topology of the continents, though - around 30-40 MYA - inhibiting the Antarctic currents - around the time the recent problems with the ice caps began.
tmtyler 2 years ago
Which "problems with the ice-caps" would these be? The ones that coincided with the age of the mammals and saw hominids and primates thrive and evolve into modern humans? What a "horrific" problem. Or is this the problem of 100,000 year glacial cycles through which humanity was born, grew, developed and prospered?
Three days I've rubbed this in your face, and for three days all you've done is huff and puff. Is it any wonder that I resort to ad hominems when your posts lack any substance?
Ace42x 2 years ago
People can define "ice age" so that it started only three million years ago - for all I care. It really makes little difference to me.
Either way, the planet is still in the grip of a horrifying ice age, and is at serious risk of reglaciation - *unless* we intervene in the climate system and take steps to heat up the planet.
tmtyler 2 years ago
"Horrifying" in that it is the only conditions in which modern man or their direct ancestors, or even intelligent life of any sort, have existed in? Or horrifying in that re-glaciation of the sort you describe could possibly occur after the entire duration of human civilisation is repeated five times over? And that is more horrifying that the very real possibility of climate change causing civilisation to break-down within a couple of centuries? PRIORITIES MAN!
Ace42x 2 years ago
Civilisation is not going to "break-down" as a result of global warming. That's fear mongering peddled by those who stand to benefit from the resulting scare.
Those doing climate research - and the like. In case you hadn't noticed, research often produces findings that promote additional funding.
tmtyler 2 years ago
"Civilisation is not going to "break-down" as a result of global warming." Well, good to know that an Internet chump whose entire philosophy on the subject consists of a misrepresentation of a handful of highly contested articles featured in a couple of broadsheets and New Scientist magazine, apparently selected only on the criteria that "it sounds good to him" knows more than every major scientific body in the world. Oh, I forgot, the IPCC are trying to deceive you, part of the NWO... Pfft.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The causal factors at work behind the glacial cycle are numerous, and inter-related. Suggesting that dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause the temperature to "magically level out" at a convenient tropical level (itself a myth, tropical levels are inconvenient in a number of ways) is totally irrational. It is like trying to argue for trashing your street's water main to stop your tap from leaking. Yes, it will have the desired effect, but in a very specific and unhelpful way.
Ace42x 2 years ago
The main thing is to get out of the ice age - where the climate goes up and down like a yo-yo - due to positive feedback. My view (and that of many scientists) is that CO2 might help significantly with that. Some scientists even think that CO2 has already prevented reglaciation!
We will have a very hard time getting the planet back to normal - due to the presence of Antarctica over the pole. That is not going away soon. However, IMO, we should get as far away from the ice-age as we can.
tmtyler 2 years ago
"The main thing is to get out of the ice age - where the climate goes up and down like a yo-yo - due to positive feedback."
How can it be "the main thing" if you are willing to scrap the definition of "ice-age" you have been using (the mere presence of Antarctica) because it "It really makes little difference to me."?
And again you fixate on the "yo-yo" thing. The mere fact that there is cyclical variation is NOT A BAD THING; "yo-yoing" between summer and winter is vital for life on Earth.
Ace42x 2 years ago
By 'normal' you mean conditions that not only man, but also many of his non-sapiens ancestors, would never have experienced? Conditions that no intelligent species has ever experienced or involved in? Conditions where the arrangement of the continents were totally alien to us? Bizarre usage of the term "normal".
Ace42x 2 years ago