Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

"And again, the IPCC has duped you. "

That's a pretty amazing statement considering that I didn't get the information from the IPCC. Do you honestly believe that the IPCC were the ones who came up with global warming or the carbon cycle? What I should have said was that CO2 takes 100 years to flow through the entire carbon cycle. And the carbon cycle involves more than just the atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere is the smallest component of the carbon cycle.

 

[palerider]

No, it is manmade ocean acidification due to the saturation within the ocean of human released acidic gases such as CO2 and SO2.

Are you saying that only manmade CO2 goes into the ocean? What about the fact that we don't produce enough CO2 to overcome natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry

I refer you to biochemistry 101. The alkalinity of the ocean has generally been stable for millions of years, as has the pH. As a result many organisms are adapted specifically to the ocean's alkalinity. The alkalinity of the ocean acts as a buffer to help mantain the pH. Now it is getting more acid (less alkaline - the pH is changing, with the ocean becoming more acidic), and many of those same species are now under duress, and some have succumbed. This is well documented.

Duped again. I tell you guy, if I were you and found out that I had been taken advantage of to the degree to which you have, I would be looking for someone to sue. Do you ever actually do research or is regurgitating the pap you have been spoonfed the best you can do?

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/23/9316.abstract

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026305.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;320/5874/336

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N34/C1.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/EDIT.php

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/09/13/coral-bleaching/

By the way. Name off the species that have gone extinct due to ocean "acidification".

From wikipedia - "Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of −0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration. By the first decade of the 21st century however, the net change in ocean pH levels relative pre-industrial level was about -0.11, representing an increase of some 30% in "acidity" (ion concentration) in the world's oceans.

Are you sure that connoly didn't rewrite that article?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

CLIP:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

 

[palerider]

"Local wether patterns, perhaps. Global patterns, lets see the proof."

How many local weather pattern changes do you think the global atmosphere can absorb? We see those changes in the Amazon, the Sehel and other regions of Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo, China, India, and even here in the States.

The amazon? Have you not heard of amazongate? Another IPCC lie that you have gobbled up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ngate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

You really need to do a bit of actual research reading actual studies, not the predigested misinformational pablum that you have been consuming.

 

[palerider]

We are now losing species at a breakneck speed.

The whole argument comes down to that statement.

Name them. If we are losing species at breakneck speed, you should have no problem naming off plenty. If you have been lied to, you will find it difficult to name more than two or three in the past 50 years.

 

[orogenicman]

"Actually the natural carbon cycle has released far more than 6 billion tons of CO2. Our 6 billion tons is a fraction of 1 percent of the natural carbon cycle."

This is not the whole story, as I've point out in other forums. It seems that you've been duped, not me.

The fact is that since as recently as 1960, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by over 20%, which is an unprecedented event over such a short time period. No natural phenonemon can explain it. But the ever increasing and huge amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by human sources (and which you've yet to explain how it is possible to release that much of a very reactive compound into the environment and yet it have no effect on the planet) can and does.

 

[palerider]

Whether it occurred before is irrelevant to the fact that it is occurring now as a response to global warming, which you've already conceded is ocurring. One thing the tundra didn't do before is release all that methane while there were 6+ billion souls on the planet.

No it is not irrelavent. You are blaming man. If it happened before man could have caused it, your hypothesis that we are causing it now is seriously damaged and a responsibility falls upon your shoulders to prove that while it has happened before, we are responsible now. A burden that I am afraid that you can't shoulder.

If the tundra released its methane before there were 6 billion souls on the planet, what caused it? What conditions exist today that would preclude the same cause today as in the past?

 

[orogenicman]

Yes...and I will cheer on commonsense very day of the week and most assuredly when it bursts the harebrained bubble of DF liberals...

Almost nothing is as idiotic and dangerous as man caused global warming to the desires of freedom loving people everywhere...but I am certain you fail to understand this.

Do you think that common sense dictates that "God did it", and if so, how did science ever make any discoveries at all? Sorry you don't really understand any of this, do you? You're just against anything that you can label a liberal conspiracy. Right? And those conservatives who do think that global warming is real? Are they going to be chastized and dumped from the party as well?

 

[orogenicman]

No it is not irrelavent. You are blaming man. If it happened before man could have caused it, your hypothesis that we are causing it now is seriously damaged and a responsibility falls upon your shoulders to prove that while it has happened before, we are responsible now. A burden that I am afraid that you can't shoulder.

If the tundra released its methane before there were 6 billion souls on the planet, what caused it? What conditions exist today that would preclude the same cause today as in the past?

No one is denying that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. What causes it is the milankovitch cycles. The current warming is above and beyond and much more rapid than can be explained by orbital or precessional cycles. In fact, according to measurements of the current cycle, we should be experiencing cooling, which is why scientists in the 1970s thought we might be in for another ice age some time in the future. That was before satellite and other data became available that demonstrated quite clearly that we aren't, in fact, seeing a cooling trend at all, but rather, a rapid rise in golobal temperaures. Nor can it be explained by solar output. There is too much forcing going on to be explained by either.

And no Palerider, it isn't for me to defend anything. The current concensus amont the vast majority of the world's scientists is that AGW is occuring, and so the burden of proof is on the deniers, dude.

 

[palerider]

We mitigate it to minimize the impact on lives and property.

How?

We mitigate it to minimize the impact on people and property.

How?

So you think it is, always has been, and always will be, our fate to suffer from these things and that we therefore should not even try to mitigate them?

We can't stop floods, we can't stop earthquakes, we can't stop hurricaines, we can't stop fires, we can't stop volcanoes, and we can't stop climate change.

This is a strawman argument, Palerider, and I think you know that.

No it isn't. You claimed a coming catastrophe. I asked you to prove it by proving that the earth is at the present optimum for our habitation. Clearly you can't so your claim of a coming catastrophe was no more than an appeal to emotion.

Winter is more dangerous than summer heat waves?

Of course it is. Have you not read about what is going on in south america right now? The death statistics for winter vs summer are easy enough to find. Do I need to do it for you?

You probably could tell that to the 10,000 people who died in France alone a couple of hot summers ago

That's a good one. Especially considering that green policy is what killed those people, not the heat.

Summer temperatures regularly stay over 100 degrees in the American west and don't kill 10,000 people. During that deadly summer, the temperatures were no warmer than the temperatures in Detroit, Denver, or Chicago and thousands didn't die in any of those places? Since the temperatures were no warmer than in places where thousands didn't die, one must ask what other difference there might have been.

Any guesses? The associated press gave us a clue when they reported that "The bulk of the victims—many of them elderly—died during the height of the heat wave, which brought suffocating temperatures of up to 104 degrees in a country where air conditioning is rare."

Now why might air conditioning be rare in a technologically advanced country like France? Surely they aren't that far behind us. I mean, even our poor have air conditioning.

The answer is that France, like the rest of the European Union has imposed staggeringly high taxes on energy use. About 25% higher than energy use taxes here. Combine that with an average income that is considerably lower than the average income here and you have a deadly combination.

Those high energy taxes did their job. They put people in a position where they literally had to decide whether air conditioning or eating was more important. 10,000 paid the price for bad energy policy.

And were the deaths in russia due to the heat or the fires?

 

[palerider]

I'm sure the people of New Orleans thought the same thing prior to Katrina.

What does Katrina have to do with optimum the optimum temperature for human habitation? Are you going to try to blame katrina on manmade global warming when you haven't yet proven manmade global warming?

 

[palerider]

The issue is whether or not we are in a very short time span adversely influencing global temperatures ajd weather patterns and in the process inexorably modifying the planet in inway that is harmful not only to humans, but to many other species as well.

Looking at the Vostok ice core data, I don't see anything particularly unusal about the present temperatures. Care to point out any major differences?

I think we are, and so do may other scientists. What your graph doesn't make apparent to the layman's eye is that coinciding with many of those changes from warm to cold were devastating mass extinctions. Is that the future you want for your children and their children? Another Permian mass extinction?

With the exception of the permian extinction (due to massive volcanic activity on a worldwide scale) the mass extinctions happened as the earth slid into ice ages, not as the world entered into a period of a more temperate climate.

 

[palerider]

"Abiogensis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Regardless of how life first came about, there is little doubt that it evolved.

Micro evolution yes, macro evolution? I see no compelling evidence. If there is some, by all means show it. If life didn't arise from non living material here on earth, you have opened the door wide for intelligent design and your macro evolutionary theory is out the window.

 

[palerider]

Of course, none of that is true. Unlike religious faith, science is not dogmatic, though it doesn't truly take a rocket science to realize that if you drop a ball, gravity will pull it to the ground. Present your evidence, and if I find it compelling, I am more than willing to change my tune. Got anything like that?

That being said, I am interested to know how long you now believe a CO2 molecule resides in the atmosphere and your present views on mankind's total contribution to atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

[palerider]

Really? Where? I'm an old guy, so bear with me if I don't find it anywhere in any of your responses to my queries.

Did I not explain CO2's logarithmic effect within the atmosphere and how quickly it absorbs to extinction?

 

[orogenicman]

Palerider, you've stated that you believe that global wqarming is real. What, in your view, if manmade causes aren't the answer, accounts for what we are seeing?