Global Warming, CO2, and Coral

[juvenissun]

Please, say something. I'm getting tired of your games.

It is not a game.

You seriously insulted me. I am trying to get things clear.
If you do not wish to clear it for me, then don't. Very simply.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You did not answer my question.

If I did a little bit science talk, would you point to me what that was?

May be you also like to point to me what science talk I made was an example of "trash"? Since you said all my science talks were trash, it must be very easy to give such an example.

I have already covered this point in previous posts.

Now let's talk science:

In fact, let's talk about the Zhang article you are so proud of having brought up!


To show you how it's done, here you go:

Well, like I said, we are just browsing references.

The one by Zhang et al (2007) did address an example of much recent time. I quoted their abst and conclusion below. I believe there should be A LOT other articles address more recent situations. I may try to give you another list next time.

Oops, seems you forgot to tell me you were posting this to do me a favor. So I could do all the thinking for you!

For example, I am more interested in knowing the history not only in the past 100 Ma, but all the way back to Hadean.

Is that why this reference you post is only limited to the Cenozoic?

Zhang et al (2007)

We analyzed foraminiferal and nannofossil assemblages and stable isotopes in samples from ODP Hole 807A on the Ontong

What's your experience with stable isotope geochem?

Java Plateau in order to evaluate productivity

Now, in case you are unfamiliar with the foundational terms, in oceanography productivity can be defined thusly ( from NOAA...I'm assuming even you know what NOAA is?)

biological productivity - the amount of organic matter, carbon, or energy content that is accumulated during a given time period

primary productivity - the rate at which new plant biomass is formed by photosynthesis. Gross primary productivity is the total rate of photosynthetic production of biomass; net primary productivity is gross primary productivity minus the respiration rate
(SOURCE)

and carbonate dissolution cycles over the last 550 kyr (kilo year) in the western

equatorial Pacific. Our results indicate that productivity was generally higher in glacials than during interglacials

Productivity higher in glacials than in interglacials. Check. What does that mean to you?

The biological pump and the carbonate cycles are linked.

, and gradually
increased since MIS 13. Carbonate dissolution was weak in deglacial intervals, but often reached a maximum during interglacial to
glacial transitions

Rate of submarine dissolution low during low glacial periods and increased to a max during interglacial-to-glacial transition.

Check.

. Carbonate cycles in the western equatorial Pacific were mainly influenced by changes of deep-water properties
rather than by local primary productivity.

Carbonate cycles influced by changes in deep water properties. The stuff growing and thriving near the top of the water column not a major impactor, not as large as the deep water properties. Interesting.

These different patterns in productivity and thermocline variability suggest that thermocline
dynamics probably were not a controlling factor of biological productivity in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean.

Productivity not controlled by thermocline variation in this region.

In this region,
upwelling, the influx of cool, nutrient-rich waters from the eastern equatorial Pacific or of fresh waters from rivers have probably
never been important, and their influence on productivity has been negligible over the studied period.

More limitations on the biological role.

Variations in the inferred
productivity in general are well correlated with fluctuations in the eolian flux as recorded in the northwestern Pacific, a proxy for
the late Quaternary history of the central East Asian dust flux into the Pacific. Therefore, we suggest that the dust flux from the
central East Asian continent may have been an important driver of productivity in the western Pacific.

NOW we have a major driver in the form of aeolian particulates from Asia in controlling productivity.

The highest primary productivity occurred
in the last glacial age (MISs 4–2), when seasonality was
probably very strong. In the western equatorial Pacific,
minimum carbonate dissolution occurred during glacial
to interglacial transitions and maximum dissolution
during interglacial to glacial transitions both above and
below the lysocline.

So the rates tracked above and below the lysocline. (I'm assuming you know what the lysocline is...)

During the mid-Brunhes, however,
severe carbonate dissolution did not occur above the
lysocline as described from other regions, but only
below the lysocline.

So in this particular region dissolution above the lysocline stopped. Does that sound "right" to you? (hint, remember what the lysocline indicates).

The maximum dissolution above
the lysocline (as expressed by the fragment ratio) as
averaged over the 550 kyr interval studied occurred
during MIS 8 (∼250 kyr), i.e. much later than the mid-
Brunhes. In our data there is no significant correlation
between productivity and carbonate dissolution, and we
therefore argue that fluctuations in deep-water circulation
patterns (thus character of the deep waters in the
western equatorial Pacific) were the primary factors in
regulating carbonate cycles both on glacial–interglcial
and 500-kyr timescales.

This appears to be why they assume deep water factors are impacting the carbonate cycle rather than a balance between dissolution with depth and biological productivity.

The thermocline dynamics may be linked to changes in

regional wind intensity and sea surface temperature.
There is no significant correlation between paleoproductivity
and thermocline depth, suggesting that thermocline
dynamics probably did not control biological
productivity in the western equatorial Pacific. The
similarity between our paleoproductivity record from
Hole 807A and the dust flux record in northwestern
Pacific core V21–146 suggests a link between primary
productivity and dust flux, and we argue that dust carried
from central East Asia may be more significant than
previously thought in enhancing biological productivity
in the western equatorial Pacific during glacial times.

So basically the authors are using proxies to determine paleo biological productivity in the western equatorial Pacific. They have hypothesized that airborne dust from Asia may have been more significant than others before had thought.

What particularly want to discuss about this? REMEMBER: YOU BROUGHT IT UP. YOU CUT AND PASTED IT. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT?

Remember, only trolls demand others do their thinking for them. If you have a particular reason to have brought this reference up (other than the obvious attempt by yourself to "sound" like a scientist) would be...what?

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun
You did not answer my question.

If I did a little bit science talk, would you point to me what that was?

May be you also like to point to me what science talk I made was an example of "trash"? Since you said all my science talks were trash, it must be very easy to give such an example.

I won't continue unless you answer me my question. What science trash did I say?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Once for a while, if convenient, I will teach you something:

You can simply say: there is organic carbon on meteorite. This simple sentence is stronger than all your arguments.

Again you are wrong and full of bu!!$h!t, not only that, the above statement shows you to be what you are; a charlatan, at least in respect of your claims to be a scientist

It has been known for many years that meteorites contain organic compounds, indeed I have worked on a number of carbonaceous chondrites (CC), which are examples of the oldest known unchanged material in the solar system. These CC contain ~1% distinct organic compounds, more than enough to make you look totally uneducated once again.


Organic Chemistry in Meteorites, Comets, and the Interstellar Medium

LINK

Abstract
With the notable exception of those originating on the Moon and Mars, all known meteorites are pieces of objects in the asteroid belt. As such, they have recorded a succession of chemical processes, starting from reactions in the interstellar medium (ISM), followed by reactions that accompanied the formation and evolution of the early solar system, and culminated with reactions during aqueous alteration in the meteorite parent bodies. One of the challenges in meteorite research is to decipher this record and to learn about interstellar formation processes as well as to conditions in the early solar system. The rare class of carbonaceous chondrites contains up to 5% by weight of organic carbon, most of which is locked in an insoluble macromolecular material and only about 20% of it is in the form of distinct organic compound classes. The molecular and isotopic data of these organic compounds clearly show an interstellar heritage, but a fraction of these precursors were later modified. For example, the amino acids were probably formed inside the meteorite parent body during the aqueous alteration period from simple molecules such as HCN, NH3 and carbonyl compounds. However, the CI type carbonaceous chondrites contain a significantly distinct amino acid composition, indicating that there may be other synthetic processes involved. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are probably the most abundant form of organic carbon in the gas phase in the ISM. PAHs are among the most abundant organic compounds in carbonaceous meteorites, and they have been shown to have a presolar origin. A fraction of these PAHs are present in an extractable form, while the rest is part of the insoluble macromolecular matter. Progress is being made in the understanding of the evolution of this material in relation to aqueous alteration and oxidation. Although the potential of cometary meteorites cannot be ruled out, no such macro-meteorite has been recognized in the meteorite collections. Therefore, the organic composition of comets has been inferred mostly from astronomical observations. Future in-situ investigation of comets with spacecraft such as Rosetta will deliver new data on their organic composition, in particular the non-volatile fraction. However, in order to understand the contributions of different formation processes in primitive solar system objects, the analysis of the organic composition of meteorites remains essential.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I won't continue unless you answer me my question. What science trash did I say?

BEHOLD: Juvenissun is looking for his "chicken out" moment!

OK, I'll not give you an out here either:

I never said your "science" was trash talk, if you note I said you "trash talked". Want some examples?

BEHOLD:

Read again my reply. I***t.

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

So, smart guy, I don't expect you give me any answer that I don't know.

THAT is pretty much the definition of "trash talk". You snarl at people and you don't bother to follow it up with any substantive action.

(And since you don't like details or references, I'll give you some:

trash-talk (tr

sh

tôk

)
intr.v. trash-talked, trash-talk·ing, trash-talks To speak disparagingly, often insultingly or abusively about a person or group.

(SOURCE)

Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations (such as sports events).(SOURCE)

Now, can you please continue trying to sound like a scientist?

Buck buck buck.

 

[juvenissun]

BEHOLD: Juvenissun is looking for his "chicken out" moment!

OK, I'll not give you an out here either:

I never said your "science" was trash talk, if you note I said you "trash talked". Want some examples?

You did several times.

You said I did "all"-trash talk in science.

For the one you quoted:

Originally Posted by juvenissun
I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

Why is this one a trash?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You did several times.

Here's the exact quote from that post:

He has to ultimately bring up some real science in detail so we will know he isn't all trash-talk and no substance, right?

I clearly did not say your "science" was trash talk. In fact I think your science is almost completely absent (if you could catch that in the post), I think, most of what you have is boast and trash talk. (Now of course I did use the hyperbolic "all trash talk", but at 99% I think that is pretty close. You just bluster and blow and tell us all how you are thinking about the subject but you never post much in a scientific manner). The key here is you just "talk big" but never bring any game. And when you do bother to attempt to bring something it is usually weak at best, "parroting" at worst.

Please, re-read all the last several posts (including the one in which "trash talk" is explicitly defined for you), before you go off on this tangent.

You said I did "all"-trash talk in science.

No I said you "trash talk" and almost never present any science. There's a big difference. But again, please, re-read the earlier posted definitions of "trash talk".

This is a wasteful use of my time, so I suggest you start focusing on your own failures in this "supposedly scientific" discussion before picking at subtleties of jargon. Look at which of us has actually tackled the science....

For the one you quoted: ...
Why is this one a trash?

Because you derisorily referred to someone as a "smart guy" and sneered that they didn't know enough about salt sinks in the ocean to ask you. As if you've ever produced more than unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claims backed up only after someone begs you to back them up (and even then they usually hilariously inappropriate as your "junior school" mountain definition example everyone remembers).

Please, I've posted so much now about the references you yourself posted and mysteriously enough you can't bring yourself to talk about them. Ironic.

Very, uh, troll like.

But if you are indeed not a troll and just a big ol' chicken, then please recall your words:

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

And then recall the words of your lord-n-savior:

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Maybe those words aren't drilled into your tiny avian brain. Should I print them in a bigger font?

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

I wish I could make them flash or something, to take your attention away from some other shiny metal objects.

(NOTE: This is also "trash talk", but you see, Juvenissun, the difference is I got the goods to back it up)

I've presented so much science on this thread alone it brings into sharp focus that you are trashtalk and almost no science.

I have done so on this thread many many times. I've taken the ball you tossed me, and I've discussed your references (which you could barely even bother with).

Cut-n-paste, cut-n-paste, cut-n-paste.

Buck buck buck.

Put up or admit you are chickening out. You aren't really going to discuss the stuff you yourself posted are you?

Gonna whine a little more about how people just won't let you act like a scientist without some pushback?

Please, I can type faster than you and I can formulate responses faster than you, so I can keep this up as long as you want. I'd be happy to talk science, if you'd bring some. But until then I can flood you.

This is too easy! You honestly make this game too easy.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just to scale back here a bit I've run across this:

Thaumatourgous, H., et al., 2008, Mineralogical analysis of Juvenissunoid posts in C. Forums, J. Coprolite Mineralogy v1, n1, pp1-10

It appears upon thin section analysis coupled with micro-FTIR and XRD that the Juvenissunoid posts collected in a random sampling of C. forums deposits indicates a high level of phosphatic microstructures. Primary apatite crystals are probably derived from dahllite and the groundmass of glauconite indicates that these posts are largely dominated by biologically derived excretory material on a scale not usually seen.

later on the authors point out:

...it is impossible to overstate the dominance of the gluaconitic material, but indeed it must be kept in mind a minority of small clasts of "content" are sometimes found. However, classifying the content as anything in detail is nearly impossible as neither TEM analysis or Field Emission SEM was up to the task to characterize the particles owing to their small size and rarity within the general groundmass.

Now, there's some science!

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

Why is this one a trash?

As if you've ever produced more than unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claims backed up only after someone begs you to back them up

Even what you said here is true, I still do not see why is my reply a trash, or empty in science. In fact, the science in my answer was overflowing and overwhelming to him.

I am simply trying to make the situation clear. If whatever I said is always trash or empty to you, then there would be nothing more to talk about. So, I insist that you either give me an answer, or an apology. Or, you can simply ignore me.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Even what you said here is true, I still do not see why is my reply a trash, or empty in science.

O.M.G. You can't read can you?

I have already defined trash talk for you. Way back on this post:

trash-talk (tr

sh

tôk

)
intr.v. trash-talked, trash-talk·ing, trash-talks To speak disparagingly, often insultingly or abusively about a person or group.

(SOURCE)

Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations (such as sports events).(SOURCE)

Were you unable to understand? Your science is nearly non-existent. The trash talk comment is in relation to how you go at others but bring no game yourself.

Oh my. If you are functionally illiterate and inherently dishonest in a science debate, then you have many issues to deal with. Not the least of which is your inability to grasp the concepts or discuss them.

I am terribly sorry that you are so handicapped. My apologies for being as brutal as I've been. I thought you might be simply dishonest, not mentally incapable in general.

In fact, the science in my answer was overflowing and overwhelming to him.

What "answer"?

You mean this:

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

So, smart guy, I don't expect you give me any answer that I don't know.

Oh, that is simply brimming with scientific erudition! Wow. Fact after fact after fact. But wait, you didn't bother to back the "facts" up with anything like a discussion or explanation.

I am simply trying to make the situation clear. If whatever I said is always trash or empty to you

I hope you learn to read some day.

, then there would be nothing more to talk about. So, I insist that you either give me an answer, or an apology. Or, you can simply ignore me.

Sounds like someone needs to be reminded of his own words:

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

If you need me to apologize to you in order for you to not have a chicken-out excuse then please, do accept my formal and overt apology.

I apologize for pointing out how much you mostly "trash talk" and seldom provide science (since, after all, not everything you say is "trash talk", much of it is simply empty bluster and unending questions which you don't care to answer). And I apologize for pointing out that the minimal science you do provide is often flawed or simply a gloss without much substance. I apologize for pointing out the glaring fact that you have yet to provide any substantive commentary on any of the references you posted while I have discussed, in some depth, not just one, but now two in the time it has taken you to show us your lack of literacy. And finally I apologize for introducing you to common vernacular such as "trash talk" which has been around for a decade or more.

Please, don't take this as your "chicken out" moment.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I really should apologize. I've been acting a bit "over the top" on this thread.

Don't get me wrong, Juvenissun, I don't respect you. I don't like you. And I don't believe you are who you present yourself to be.

But I have spoken intemperately. And for that I apologize.

If you wish to actually do what you claim you can do (discuss science), then by all means do so. And do it soon. I grow very tired of this game. And it is a game.

So, there, you have my contrition. You have yet to earn respect, but you have my contrition.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

Your science is nearly non-existent.

This is an example of all the problems. Why is there no science in this reply? How could anyone discuss science with you if you constantly insult with this attitude?

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is an example of all the problems. Why is there no science in this reply? How could anyone discuss science with you if you constantly insult with this attitude?

Well, troll, it could be because you almost never provide details, data or analysis but you seem to whine when others don't.

Interestingly enough, you'll note that so far, troll, I've addressed substantively not one, but two of the references you cut-n-pasted. You have so far not commented on any of them to any real extent.

Ironic, Mr. Christian. Ironic indeed.

Luke 6:31

Now post some science and stop whining.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

This is an example of all the problems. Why is there no science in this reply? How could anyone discuss science with you if you constantly insult with this attitude?

Before you can discuss science, you need a working knowledge of a scientific discipline; from your posts on this forum, insisting on creationism, lack of geological understanding, lack of biological understanding, well come to that lack of any scientific understanding; it is impossible to have any meaningful in-depth scientific discussion with you.

If you really do have a geology degree; I would suggest to you, to go get a brief and sue the University for Breach of contract, because quite clearly from your posts they failed miserably to educate you to even the most minimal standard.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by thaumaturgy

Originally Posted by juvenissun

I don't think you know enough sodium sinks in the ocean to ask me this question. And, if you think all the sinks are "in the ocean" (means under the seawater), you are further wrong. Ultimately, if you search the balance of Na in the ocean anywhere, you will find the best answer we currently have is only a guess.

Your science is nearly non-existent.

Well, troll, it could be because you almost never provide details, data or analysis but you seem to whine when others don't.

The purpose of that particular reply is not on details. In scientific conversation, there is a time to talk about details, there is also a time to talk broader understanding.

Even the details was not revealed in that reply, you should not insult me by saying that there is almost zero science in that reply.

I have been patient and polite with you. But if you insult me ONE more time, then I will cease to talk to you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The purpose of that particular reply is not on details. In scientific conversation, there is a time to talk about details, there is also a time to talk broader understanding.

Are you still whining? I thought maybe someday you'd talk in something other than "broader" swaths.

You see, we know you for what you are precisely because you never talk in specifics.

Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matthew 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

If you ever bothered to flesh out a single idea in detail we might be fooled into thinking you had been introduced to science.

But because you don't, we know what you are and why you are here.

Even the details was not revealed in that reply, you should not insult me by saying that there is almost zero science in that reply.

What details?

I have been patient and polite with you. But if you insult me ONE more time, then I will cease to talk to you.

If that is the excuse you wish to use to "chicken out", I will understand.

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason

Again, I apologize for pointing out your failure in this discussion. And I apologize for reminding you of the uncomfortable words of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Go forth, ignore me and show us what kind of scientist and what kind of Christian you are.

 

[Vene]

The purpose of that particular reply is not on details. In scientific conversation, there is a time to talk about details, there is also a time to talk broader understanding.

Even the details was not revealed in that reply, you should not insult me by saying that there is almost zero science in that reply.

I have been patient and polite with you. But if you insult me ONE more time, then I will cease to talk to you.

Do you promise? Because I completely agree with thaum. You are an imposter. I know more geology than you. That's sad considering how little I know about geology. At least there's a good reason for me to know more chemistry and biology. You have got nothing. You make completely unsupported assertions. You seem to be scared of details, well guess what, it's those details that make a theory what it is. It's those details that can make the difference from medicine and poison. One of the things that amazes me about chemistry is how much difference a single bond can make. For that matter, I'm amazed how much of a difference the chirality makes. But, I guess that's just one insignificant detail to you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

In order to lighten the mood here, I present for you, some select readings from Grettir's Saga, one of the famous Icelandic sagas:

(Selections in no particular order...)

Then Thorkell's men sprang up and said it was impossible that a troll should have taken the man in full daylight.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vikings
laughed and said:

"Trolls take the rascal Treefoot
and lay him even with the ground.

Never yet did I see men go to battle who could not carry themselves."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bondi wanted them to go out and search for the shepherd, but the churchgoers cried off, and said they were not going to trust themselves into the power of trolls in the night

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grettir rushed into the house, not knowing who was there. His cloak had all frozen directly he landed, and he was a portentous sight to behold; he looked like a troll.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Thorir said: "I always heard that Grettir was distinguished for his courage and daring, but I never knew that he was so skilled in magic as I now see he is; for there fall half as many again behind his back as before his face, and I see that we have to do with a troll instead of a man."

 

[thaumaturgy]

I will not appreciate that you chicken out, by any reason...

Have we lost Juvenissun? Did he go off for "greener pastures" where his words are not questioned?

Well, I'm actually kinda saddened. I feel I did get a bit nasty and snarky (quite a bit actually). But since I feel strongly about science and people who attempt to pose as scientists I tend to get worked up a bit.

I think this thread has shown us quite a bit about Juvenissun. I will have to bookmark this as a monument to his "discussion" skills in science.

I am sure he will ignore me in the future, but he can rest assured that I will not ignore his "science" when it is required.

 

[Vene]

He did say he'd leave if insulted one more time. Somehow, I'm less than upset. By the way, any lurkers out there have any comments or questions? I'd be happy to try and answer them, and I'm pretty sure thaum would too.