On 12/1/2025 at 10:07 AM, Alan Zweibel said:

the climate is changing all the time and the Earth is still here!!

And where are all the plants and creatures that existed then? 

Anyway, yes climate is changing all the time. But it's the rate of change that's significant. Let me put it this way. If a bank offered you 2 kinds of savings account that were exactly identical except one offered you 10% interest and the other 1% interest, which one would you take?

It's the accelerated rate that makes climate change a problem not the fact of change itself.

 

Please explain What is the difference if we increase 2 degrees quickly or not.. what does the rate of how fast it increases changes things??

They said if the earth got 2 degrees warmer the ice caps would melt and that would be the end of the world. (fearmongering people so they can make money)

 

We live in a modern world. We have technology that gets us deep into the oceans and into outer space.

We have homes with air conditioning and heat.  We have people that live in the tropics and in the artic So I think even if the temperatures

increase we have enough technology to adapt to live in the conditions. 

 

 

 

.

 

35 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

yes, an extrapolation of data show co2 would have dropped to 150 ppm during an interglacial period within 2 million years, thus ending complex life.

and it wouldnt have been the first time, last time around it was a fungi that saved the world, by recycling dead trees 

 

https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html

 

Patrick Moore is a scientist, and corals use co2 to build their reefs,

salt water tank operators has found that the equivalent to 1000 ppm co2 is optimal for coral reef growth

 

 

 

Well, I did get it wrong about Patrick Moore not being a scientist. Of course, he  got his Ph.D in forest biology not climatology. And his research days are decades past in the 20th century.

There was nothing in the video to support your claim that the salt "water tank operators has found that the equivalent to 1000 ppm C02 is optimal for coral reef growth" 

In fact, I haven't found any confirmation of that anywhere. What I did find was that hobbyists who maintain coral reefs in a tank say that the optimal PH is between 8.1 and 8.4. In fact, they often use CO2 scrubbers.

As for that 1000 pppm claim of yours:The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09003816

 

And as for the extermination of complex life within 2 million years? Well, that was a close call. Whew, we escaped that just by the skin of our teeth.  If it's even true. The thing is, at other times during the current ice age when glaciation was at its maximum, was complex life on earth wiped out? The last time that CO2 was at 150 ppm was about 3 million years ago. So are you claiming that all complex life on earth was eliminated 3 million years ago and in the interval between then and now complex life re-evolved?

34 minutes ago, ericthai said:

 

Please explain What is the difference if we increase 2 degrees quickly or not.. what does the rate of how fast it increases changes things??

They said if the earth got 2 degrees warmer the ice caps would melt and that would be the end of the world. (fearmongering people so they can make money)

 

We live in a modern world. We have technology that gets us deep into the oceans and into outer space.

We have homes with air conditioning and heat.  We have people that live in the tropics and in the artic So I think even if the temperatures

increase we have enough technology to adapt to live in the conditions. 

 

 

 

Because while humans may be able to adapt, at least the ones who can afford to do so, evolution doesn't work that fast for most other living things.. And people living in the tropics are already suffering from the effects of increased heat. In fact, so are people in the coldest parts of the planet as permafrost turns into mud.

14 hours ago, Yagoda said:

So you do  believe in the climate armageddon. You believe in a "tipping point" and of course, Trump makes it worse.

 

Pathetic I may be, but brainwashed I am not. 

Given the looseness of your reasoning, and the irrelevant deflections, it might be helpful if you define what you mean by "climate armageddon".

15 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Well, I did get it wrong about Patrick Moore not being a scientist. Of course, he  got his Ph.D in forest biology not climatology. And his research days are decades past in the 20th century.

There was nothing in the video to support your claim that the salt "water tank operators has found that the equivalent to 1000 ppm C02 is optimal for coral reef growth" 

In fact, I haven't found any confirmation of that anywhere. What I did find was that hobbyists who maintain coral reefs in a tank say that the optimal PH is between 8.1 and 8.4. In fact, they often use CO2 scrubbers.

As for that 1000 pppm claim of yours:The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09003816

 

And as for the extermination of complex life within 2 million years? Well, that was a close call. Whew, we escaped that just by the skin of our teeth.  If it's even true. The thing is, at other times during the current ice age when glaciation was at its maximum, was complex life on earth wiped out? The last time that CO2 was at 150 ppm was about 3 million years ago. So are you claiming that all complex life on earth was eliminated 3 million years ago and in the interval between then and now complex life re-evolved?

the salt water tank operators and their experiments and consensus of ideal co2 level comes from their forum

 

co2 has never dropped below 180 ppm, or we wouldnt be here.

last time that happened was during last glaciation period,

when plant life did die off at higher altitudes

2 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

the salt water tank operators and their experiments and consensus of ideal co2 level comes from their forum

 

co2 has never dropped below 180 ppm, or we wouldnt be here.

last time that happened was during last glaciation period,

when plant life did die off at higher altitudes

I stand corrected on the fact that CO2 PPM has never fallen below 180. Actually 172-180 So where does this daft prediction of 150 ppm come from?  What scientific research is there to justify extrapolation is the case? If that's really what Moore claimed, that's just more evidence of his unreliability.

 

I did a search on coral hobbyists and I never saw anything like that. In fact, they recommended ignoring CO2 and just concentrating on PH levels which according to them are ideal between 8.1-8.4. Ocean average PH is now 8.1

And I see you have produced no actual scientific research to support your claim.

 

So, basically, your assertion about CO2 dropping to 150 ppm is based on a claim, not peer-reviewed research, by Patrick Moore.

Here's what I got from AI about that:

1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim

The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate).

 

• The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years.

• Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict.

• The short answer is no. There is no widely accepted peer-reviewed scientific consensus that atmospheric CO₂ was on a trajectory to fall below 150 ppm (the "starvation" level for C3 plants) within the next 2 million years.

  While it is true that atmospheric CO₂ levels have generally declined over the last 50 million years and reached historic lows during recent ice ages, the "2 million years" figure appears to come from linear extrapolations by non-consensus figures (most notably Dr. Patrick Moore) rather than rigorous climate modeling.

  Mainstream science places the timeline for "CO₂ starvation" much further out—typically 100 to 900 million years into the future.

   

  Here is a detailed breakdown of the science vs. the claim.

  1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim

  The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate).

   

• The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years.

• Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict.

   

• 2. What Peer-Reviewed Science Actually Says

  There is a genuine scientific field that studies the "lifespan of the biosphere," but the timelines are vastly different.

  A. The "Biosphere Lifespan" Timeline (100–900 Million Years)

  The seminal peer-reviewed papers on this topic project that CO₂ will eventually fall to 150 ppm, but it will take hundreds of millions of years.

• Mechanism: As the Sun slowly gets brighter (increasing solar luminosity), Earth warms up. This speeds up silicate weathering (chemical erosion of rocks), a process that scrubs CO₂ out of the atmosphere.

   

• The Consensus: Eventually, weathering will pull CO₂ down faster than volcanoes can replace it, causing levels to drop below the threshold for photosynthesis.

  • Lovelock & Whitfield (1982): Originally estimated ~100 million years.

     

  • Caldeira & Kasting (1992): Refined the model to roughly 500–900 million years, noting that C4 plants (like corn and grasses) can survive much lower CO₂ levels (down to ~10 ppm) than C3 plants (trees, wheat).

     

  • Franck et al. (2000): Confirmed similar timelines, often citing 1+ billion years for total biosphere extinction.

•  

• Why it didn't go lower: There appear to be strong natural feedbacks that prevent CO₂ from dropping much below 180 ppm. When CO₂ gets that low, plants struggle, and the planet gets very cold, which naturally slows down the chemical weathering that removes CO₂. This creates a "floor" that the Earth bounces off of.

• The "Near Miss": While 180 ppm is uncomfortably close to the 150 ppm limit for C3 plants, there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that the trend was breaking through this floor to hit 150 ppm in the immediate geological future.

• B. The "Glacial Floor" (180 ppm)

  We do have hard data from ice cores (like Vostok and EPICA) showing that during the depths of the last Ice Age (approx. 20,000 years ago), CO₂ fell to 180 ppm.

And your claim about CO2 levels of 1000 ppm being ideal, comes from alleged parties who grow coral but not from scientific research.  

Here is what real research shows:

Coral reef experiment shows: Acidification from carbon dioxide slows growth

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm

 

In situ experiment on Great Barrier Reef tests future ocean acidification scenario

https://stri.si.edu/story/cover-up

 

And, surprise, surprise, they contradict your claim.

2 hours ago, ericthai said:

 

Please explain What is the difference if we increase 2 degrees quickly or not.. what does the rate of how fast it increases changes things??

They said if the earth got 2 degrees warmer the ice caps would melt and that would be the end of the world. (fearmongering people so they can make money)

 

We live in a modern world. We have technology that gets us deep into the oceans and into outer space.

We have homes with air conditioning and heat.  We have people that live in the tropics and in the artic So I think even if the temperatures

increase we have enough technology to adapt to live in the conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Deep into the oceans? Like the Titan?

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I stand corrected on the fact that CO2 PPM has never fallen below 180. Actually 172-180 So where does this daft prediction of 150 ppm come from?  What scientific research is there to justify extrapolation is the case? If that's really what Moore claimed, that's just more evidence of his unreliability.

 

I did a search on coral hobbyists and I never saw anything like that. In fact, they recommended ignoring CO2 and just concentrating on PH levels which according to them are ideal between 8.1-8.4. Ocean average PH is now 8.1

And I see you have produced no actual scientific research to support your claim.

 

So, basically, your assertion about CO2 dropping to 150 ppm is based on a claim, not peer-reviewed research, by Patrick Moore.

Here's what I got from AI about that:

1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim

The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate).

 

 

• The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years.

• Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict.

• The short answer is no. There is no widely accepted peer-reviewed scientific consensus that atmospheric CO₂ was on a trajectory to fall below 150 ppm (the "starvation" level for C3 plants) within the next 2 million years.

  While it is true that atmospheric CO₂ levels have generally declined over the last 50 million years and reached historic lows during recent ice ages, the "2 million years" figure appears to come from linear extrapolations by non-consensus figures (most notably Dr. Patrick Moore) rather than rigorous climate modeling.

  Mainstream science places the timeline for "CO₂ starvation" much further out—typically 100 to 900 million years into the future.

   

   

  Here is a detailed breakdown of the science vs. the claim.

  1. The Source of the "2 Million Years" Claim

  The specific claim that life would perish from CO₂ starvation within roughly 2 million years is primarily associated with Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace member turned industry consultant and CO₂ advocate).

   

   

• The Argument: Moore argues that over the last 150 million years, CO₂ has steadily declined from >2000 ppm to the recent pre-industrial low of 280 ppm (and ~180 ppm during glacial maximums). He linearly extrapolates this trend to argue that without human emissions, we would have hit the 150 ppm "line of death" for plants within roughly 1.8 to 2 million years.

• Scientific Standing: This specific extrapolation is not supported by standard climate models. Geological processes are rarely linear. At low CO₂ levels, natural feedback loops (like reduced weathering rates) tend to stabilize the atmosphere, preventing it from hitting zero or critically low levels as quickly as a simple straight line would predict.

   

   

• 2. What Peer-Reviewed Science Actually Says

  There is a genuine scientific field that studies the "lifespan of the biosphere," but the timelines are vastly different.

  A. The "Biosphere Lifespan" Timeline (100–900 Million Years)

  The seminal peer-reviewed papers on this topic project that CO₂ will eventually fall to 150 ppm, but it will take hundreds of millions of years.

• Mechanism: As the Sun slowly gets brighter (increasing solar luminosity), Earth warms up. This speeds up silicate weathering (chemical erosion of rocks), a process that scrubs CO₂ out of the atmosphere.

   
   

   

• The Consensus: Eventually, weathering will pull CO₂ down faster than volcanoes can replace it, causing levels to drop below the threshold for photosynthesis.

  • Lovelock & Whitfield (1982): Originally estimated ~100 million years.

     

     

  • Caldeira & Kasting (1992): Refined the model to roughly 500–900 million years, noting that C4 plants (like corn and grasses) can survive much lower CO₂ levels (down to ~10 ppm) than C3 plants (trees, wheat).

     

     

  • Franck et al. (2000): Confirmed similar timelines, often citing 1+ billion years for total biosphere extinction.

•  

   

• Why it didn't go lower: There appear to be strong natural feedbacks that prevent CO₂ from dropping much below 180 ppm. When CO₂ gets that low, plants struggle, and the planet gets very cold, which naturally slows down the chemical weathering that removes CO₂. This creates a "floor" that the Earth bounces off of.

• The "Near Miss": While 180 ppm is uncomfortably close to the 150 ppm limit for C3 plants, there is no evidence in the paleoclimate record that the trend was breaking through this floor to hit 150 ppm in the immediate geological future.

• B. The "Glacial Floor" (180 ppm)

  We do have hard data from ice cores (like Vostok and EPICA) showing that during the depths of the last Ice Age (approx. 20,000 years ago), CO₂ fell to 180 ppm.

And your claim about CO2 levels of 1000 ppm being ideal, comes from alleged parties who grow coral but not from scientific research.  

Here is what real research shows:

Coral reef experiment shows: Acidification from carbon dioxide slows growth

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180314145016.htm

 

In situ experiment on Great Barrier Reef tests future ocean acidification scenario

https://stri.si.edu/story/cover-up

 

And, surprise, surprise, they contradict your claim.

Boo!

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And I see you have produced no actual scientific research to support your claim.

 

So, basically, your assertion about CO2 dropping to 150 ppm is based on a claim, not peer-reviewed research, by Patrick Moore.

i am taking the salt water tank operators word for it, they have to dog in the fight, -unlike "climate scientists", they are out to optimize growth, just like greenhouse operators do, which is why both pump in co2, -to promote growth.

 

i can read a graph just like Patrick Moore, his observation is perfectly reasonable, in fact any other conclusion is irrational

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

This creates a "floor" that the Earth bounces off of.

no, earth doesnt "bounce off", something need to be done,

like a volcano eruption/ species that recycle trees back into the atmosphere in the form of co2 where it belong,

of which we know two have done: fungi and humans,

which makes both species heroes

 

say it loudly, say it proudly, we burn fossil fuels, and in so doing save the planet

9 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Given the looseness of your reasoning, and the irrelevant deflections, it might be helpful if you define what you mean by "climate armageddon".

Given the Orwellian language use of the Socialist movement, whatever definition I give will be redefined like the upcoming ice age became global warming and then began climate change. 

 

How dare you, the tipping point is coming.

17 hours ago, mordothailand said:

im already knowledgeable on the situation, but your elaboration didnt explain anything, can you re-formulate what you were trying to say ?

no Im not your secretary. If your so knowledgeable then you don't need my explanation you already know what I originally wrote and just trolling now.

14 hours ago, mordothailand said:

yes, an extrapolation of data show co2 would have dropped to 150 ppm during an interglacial period within 2 million years, thus ending complex life.

and it wouldnt have been the first time, last time around it was a fungi that saved the world, by recycling dead trees 

 

https://holoceneclimate.com/temperature-versus-co2-the-big-picture.html

 

Patrick Moore is a scientist, and corals use co2 to build their reefs,

salt water tank operators has found that the equivalent to 1000 ppm co2 is optimal for coral reef growth

 

 

 

Co2 is only one factor in the change in climate and gets far too much attention as the measure of climate change. But you already know that right since you're so knowledgeable

16 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Co2 is only one factor in the change in climate and gets far too much attention as the measure of climate change. But you already know that right since you're so knowledgeable

yes, but here im talking about the declining co2 trend, which also has many factors going into it, but the inevitable result is co2 famine, lest we do something about it,

and we are the only species capable of recycling co2 back into the atmosphere where it belong 

30 minutes ago, Dan O said:

no Im not your secretary. If your so knowledgeable then you don't need my explanation you already know what I originally wrote and just trolling now.

it didnt make sense, i could not figure out what you were trying to say, maybe try to re-formulate your thoughts ?

14 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Because while humans may be able to adapt, at least the ones who can afford to do so, evolution doesn't work that fast for most other living things.. And people living in the tropics are already suffering from the effects of increased heat. In fact, so are people in the coldest parts of the planet as permafrost turns into mud.

yeah, i know the hardship of living in thailand, i also happen to know the hardship of living in sweden,

and like yourself, i take thailand any day of the week because of the climate, and only desperation stemming from a completely broken back could coerce me into going back into this frozen miserable hellhole

we´re too late folks, several EU nations drowned and GB was plunged into siberian climate several years ago, if only we had listened to the scientists

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

 

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. 

 

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

 

those damned denialists...