Davin News Server

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 12:06:32 -0700,  Alan says...  

> But you clearly don't want to address that the increases in CO2 that 
> you've been touting for it's effect on plant growth are orders of 
> magnitude larger than the actual increase the world's CO2 has experienced.

Hmmm... don't remember saying that.
 
> The point remains that you want simultaneously argue that a small change 
> in CO2 can't have a significant effect on warming

True.


> AND that that same change can have a significant effect on crop yields.

Also true.

And they ARE mutually exclusive, moron.

YOU'RE the one conflating the two, not me.

Only an idiot would link two totally different things that one something causes.

MAN'S pittance of CO² contribution (12ppm) does NOT cause warming, but 430ppm CO² DOES help plants grow faster and bigger while 
bearing more fruit.

430ppm doesn't cause warming either.

CO² is a product of warming, not the other way around.

It's happened in the past the EXACT same way. That's why the liars use the past as the basis for their lies.


Soooo... it's your claim that CO² causes warming... right?

Right.

So HOW is THIS possible?

During the Cambrian period (around 540 to 485 million years ago): CO2 concentrations are estimated to have been as high as 4,000 
ppm, and some estimates go up to 6,000 ppm or even higher (some sources suggest ranges of 2,500 to 6,000 ppmv, or even up to 
8,960 ppm at certain points in the early Cambrian). This was a period known for the "Cambrian explosion, " a burst of 
multicellular life in the oceans.

Wait for itttt:

Other periods with very high CO2:

Late Triassic / Early Jurassic (around 237-174 million years ago): Estimates suggest CO2 levels may have reached as high as 6,000 
ppm. This was during the age of dinosaurs, a very warm period with no polar ice sheets.
Ordovician and Silurian (around 500 to 400 million years ago): Some estimates are in the range of 2,500 to 6,000 ppmv.

Wait for itttt:

Even higher, much earlier: Some evidence suggests extremely high CO2 concentrations (e.g., ~12% or 120,000 ppm - TWELVE FUCKING 
THOUSAND PPM!) accumulated during the "SNOWBALL EARTH" periods in the Neoproterozoic Era (over 600 million years ago).

BOOM, baby!

Question:

Many climate scientists say warming comes before rising CO2 levels, not the other way around. Arctic paleo-climatologists have 
proven it with ice core samples. Care to reverse your hypothesis or at least admit that it COULD be that way, or are you going to 
parrot what your programmers TOLD you to hypothesize?

AI Answer:
That's an excellent point you've brought up, and it touches on a fascinating and often-discussed aspect of paleoclimate science 
derived from ice core data.

You are absolutely correct that in the past, specifically during the transitions from glacial (ice age) periods to interglacial 
(warmer) periods recorded in ice cores, an increase in global temperatures often preceded the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. 
This lag can be anywhere from a few hundred to about a thousand years.

Admitting the Nuance:
So, yes, I can absolutely admit that it could be that way AND INDEED WAS THAT WAY IN THOSE SPECIFIC PAST CLIMATE SHIFTS.

The key to understanding this phenomenon in the ice core record lies in the mechanisms driving those past climate shifts:

Orbital Forcing (Milankovitch Cycles): The initial warming that kicks off an interglacial period is primarily triggered by 
subtle, predictable changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun (known as Milankovitch cycles). These changes alter the distribution 
and intensity of solar radiation reaching different parts of the Earth, particularly the high northern latitudes.

Initial Warming and Ocean Response:
As these orbital changes cause a slow initial warming in the Northern Hemisphere, it leads to a retreat of ice sheets and a 
warming of the oceans.

Ocean Outgassing of CO2:
The vast oceans hold enormous amounts of dissolved CO2. As ocean waters warm, their ability to hold dissolved CO2 decreases, 
similar to how a carbonated drink goes flat faster when warm. This causes CO2 to outgas from the oceans into the atmosphere.

===============================================================================

"Trump Derangement Syndrome" Is a Real Mental Condition

All you need to know about "Trump Derangement Syndrome," or TDS.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike 
of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."

Justin Raimondo, the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in 2016 that broke TDS down into 
three distinct phases or stages:

"In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion. The president-elect's every tweet provokes a firestorm, 
as if 140 characters were all it took to change the world."

"The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim's vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting 
solely of hyperbole."

"As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

The Point here is simple: TDS is, in the eyes of its adherents, the knee-jerk opposition from liberals to anything and everything 
Trump does. If Trump announced he was donating every dollar he's ever made, TDS sufferers would suggest he was up to something 
nefarious, according to the logic of TDS. There's nothing - not. one. thing. - that Trump could do or say that would be received 
positively by TDSers.

The history of Trump Derangement Syndrome actually goes back to the early 2000s - a time when the idea of Trump as president was 
a punch line for late-night comics and nothing more.

Wikipedia traces its roots to "Bush Derangement Syndrome" - a term first coined by the late conservative columnist Charles 
Krauthammer back in 2003. The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people 
in reaction to the policies, the presidency - nay - the very existence of George W. Bush."