Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

How is this any different from my analogy to it acting as a filter? Filters absorb/block all but the light they are designed to transmit. Regardless, the fact is that CO2, and other GHGs like water and methane, blocks re-radiation of infrared light back into space. You can dance all you want to about this fact, but you cannot escape it.

Again, you miss the basic fact. Once a packet of IR hits a CO2 molecule, it absorbs and re emitts the radiation immediately. From that point on, it can not be effected by another CO2 molecule. Once it is emitted, it is an emission spectrum and another CO2 molecule can't absorb or block in any way. From the time it is emitted by that first CO2 molecule it comes into contact with, it is invisible to CO2. It is an emission spectrum.

The difference is that the energy budget proposed by the climate science community requires that radiation emitted by CO2 be reabsorbed by the earth and that "extra" energy serves to warm the earth beyond the warming provided by the sun. It is that extra warming that provides the additional IR (no longer an emission spectrum) to warm the atmosphere.

Radiation emitted from CO2 back towards the earth can not further warm its original heat source. You are talking about generating excess energy and that my friend is the stuff of perpetual motion. Sorry, but the laws of thermodynamics forbid it.

 

[palerider]

"Sorry to burst your bubble but you are being scamed. Here is what a lead author from the IPCC who is disgusted with the process has to say. He isn't the first and I am sure that he won't be the last. The UN is about politics, not science."

Yeah, yeah, it's all a big conspiracy. Blah, blah, blah.

The man was a lead author. Are you calling him a liar; and on what basis or do you just not like what the man has to say?

There have been quite a few lead authors and insiders who have written about the absolutely miserable science that comes out of that organization.

Hell, it is within their own charter that they have the right to rewrite whatever science is presented into a form that suits their political masters.

 

[palerider]

You are wrong, Palerider. That you claim to be a biochemist and yet have not heard the arguments is a bit disturbing to me. What school did you attend?

I am familar with the arguments. I asked you what proofs. I can ask with confidence because I know and you know that there were no proofs offered.

 

[palerider]

"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.

100 years? Sorry guy, the entire carbon cycle is measured in geological time. You said you were a geologist?

And the atmospheric phase is all that is relavent when you are specifically talking about man's CO2 emissions. Shuck and jive, dodge and weave.

Face it, you have been duped. You are a victim. You should be angry but your faith is too strong.

 

[palerider]

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.

Prove it.

No natural phenonemon can explain it.

Prove it.

 

[orogenicman]

"How?"

By building better structures. By not building on fault lines or on soil prone to liquifaction. By informing the public on Earthquake awareness, etc, etc, etc. Risk management, dude.

"How?"

By making people aware of the dangers of building on flood-prone land. By now allowing them to build on flood-prone land. By moving people out of flood-prone land. Risk management.

"How?"

By creating an early warning system of radars and an emergency broadcast system that informs the public of the threat of a tornado or hurricane. By assisting in the building of tornado-resistent structures and tornado shelters. By educating the public about the dangers of remaining in the path of a hurricane, by not building in the tidal surge zone, etc, etc, etc. Rish management, dude.

Global warming? Risk management.

"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."

Interesting that you agree that global warming is real, and agree that it has occurred in the past, and yet ignore the consequences that came out of it when it has happened. Are you in denial, or just don't want to deal with reality?

"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?"

Extreme weather is always a danger, whether it is hot weather, cold weather, a hurricane or just a lightning storm. What's your point? You do realize that increased extreme weather events are predicted by global warming models, right?

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

Green policy killed them? Not the 100 degree + tempratures? What a need magic trick, Palerider.

"Summer temperatures regularly stay over 100 degrees in the American west and don't kill 10,000 people."

But then, the people who live in the southwest know this because it is a regular occurrence and have adapted stradegies in order to survive. Extreme heat events are not all that common in Europe, and certainly haven[t been in France. It's another straw man argument.

"...Chicago and thousands didn't die in any of those places?"

No, but hundreds have died nearly every year that there has been a heat wave in recent years, particurly in Chicago. It will only get worse.

"Now why might air conditioning be rare in a technologically advanced country like France?"

Sorry, that's not it at all. There are few air conditioners in France because France doesn't often seen temperatures in the 100+ degree range. It has for the most part been a recent phenomenon.

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

Both. And do you know why that occurred? It occurred a high pressure ridge that doesn't normally form in the region, moved in and stalled, which also caused the monsoons in Pakistan to stall out, killing thousands.

 

[palerider]

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?

We don't know what drove the cycles in the past any more than we know what is driving the present. There is nothing unprecedented about the present. The roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both warmer than the present, and the data show that the warming trend was more rapid than the present. The fact that such warming has happened in the past, before man ever designed the first spark plug strongly suggests that we are not the culprit this time either.

The sun certainly has an effect and if you take time to read a bit, you will find that the sun has been decending into a grand minimum for some time. About a dozen or so years. Oddly enough, the amount of time that there has been no statistically signifigant warming all the while CO2 concentrations have been rising.

I am not inclined to jump on a bandwagon simply to feel good about myself for some incomprehensible reason. Show me facts. Show me hard observed data. Show me a hypothesis that doesn't violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

 

[orogenicman]

"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?"

Humans have shown that they can adapt (not always easily) to nearly any climate. But do you really think anyone is going to build a city like Los Angelos in the mIddle of the Sahara, or the Anarctic? A huge percentage of the world's population lives along the coasts of our oceans and seas. I have no doubt that we will see a significant rise in global sea level. We are already seeing it. Which is why I opposed re-building New Orleans. It's a complete and total waste of money and resources to contnue habitating that piece of land.

Look, we can either start planning to mitigate these things now and then implimenting them, or we can let nature do it for us at the cost of millions of lives (not all at once, but surely it will come, nonetheless).

 

[palerider]

By building better structures. By not building on fault lines or on soil prone to liquifaction. By informing the public on Earthquake awareness, etc, etc, etc. Risk management, dude.

Ok, then put more insulation in your atic because you can't stop the warming any more than you can stop the flood or the fire or the earthquake, or the hurricaine.

Interesting that you agree that global warming is real, and agree that it has occurred in the past, and yet ignore the consequences that came out of it when it has happened. Are you in denial, or just don't want to deal with reality?

As I said, except for the permian extinction which was due to worldwide volcanic activity, there is no evidence that warming poses an increased risk. Mass climate driven extinctions you are wringing your hands over all happened as the earth slid into deep ice ages, not warming trends.

Sorry, that's not it at all. There are few air conditioners in France because France doesn't often seen temperatures in the 100+ degree range. It has for the most part been a recent phenomenon.

Neither does portland oregon or san francisco. Do an audit there and see how many houses and buildings don't have AC.

Both. And do you know why that occurred? It occurred a high pressure ridge that doesn't normally form in the region, moved in and stalled, which also caused the monsoons in Pakistan to stall out, killing thousands.

And do you have a rational explanation supported by hard observed data to explain why it happened or was it just something that came out of the chaos of the global system?

 

[orogenicman]

"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?"

When you look at the ice core data, you see cycles of warming and cooling, which is in agreement with other data. At the end, you see the temperature AND the CO2 concentrations rising to near but not at recoprd levels. But the vostok data doesn't give fine resolution on what has occurred in the last 100+ years. When you look at the already established record for the current era, it shoots past all the temprature and CO2 data contained in the vostok ice core data. In other words, the ice core is great for long term data trends, but doesn't give us the fine data for the current time. What it does show clearly is that we've reached a point today that is above what has occurred in the last 400,000 years. And you wonder why so many scientists are alarmed?

 

[orogenicman]

"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."

Right. And when we look at the geologic record to try to determine why the Permean extinction saw a total of a 10 degree C rise in temperatures instead of a decrease, as one would expect from all the aerosols vocanism produces, we see a massive increase in volcanically produced CO2 emissions. Oops. There goes your argument. See, here's the problem. Flood basalts don't produce a lot of aerosols relative to other eruptions, and certainly don't send vast amounts into the stratosphere, because by comparison with other eruptions, they are fairly tame. They do, however, produce huge volumes of CO2.

 

[palerider]

I have no doubt that we will see a significant rise in global sea level.

Sea level has risen 500 feet in the past 14,000 years. What exactly would be surprising about a continued rise?

We are already seeing it.

Actually, we aren't. You have been duped again. You should take time to differentiate the difference between observed data and computer simulations.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MLK2.pdf

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=435FB939-802A-23AD-40C2-677F4B36EDBF

http://landshape.org/enm/sea-level-acceleration/

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

Look, we can either start planning to mitigate these things now and then implimenting them, or we can let nature do it for us at the cost of millions of lives (not all at once, but surely it will come, nonetheless).

I see no problem with beginning to develop technologies that will make the coming warmig more comfortable, but like any innovation, it isn't going to happen till there is a profit motive sufficient to take the best and brightest away from what they are presently doing.

It is my estimate that for the next few decades, warming isn't going to be the problem. My bet is that a cooling trend is on the way that will last past the end of my lifetime.

 

[orogenicman]

"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."

Slippery slope. Even if you could disprove evolution, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that intelligent design is the right answer. Like I've said already, it isn't enough to refute a theory. You must have an alternative in the wings that actually works and works better than the current theory. ID fails at every level yo can think of, not to mention the fact that it isn't science at all, but a fuindamentalist religious doctrine. You did even bother to read the Dover decsion?

I've presented you with a link to the evidence you requested with regard to macroevolution. You've yet to comment on any of it, and yet here you are still asking for proof. Well? What's the deal?

 

[palerider]

At the end, you see the temperature AND the CO2 concentrations rising to near but not at recoprd levels.

What you also see is a lag of about 800 years between the onset of higher temperatures and increased CO2 levels. This is due in large part to the fact that warm oceans can't hold as much CO2 as cold oceans. Are you aware that the ocean temperatures have been falling? Watch what happens to atmospheric CO2 if that trend continues.

And you wonder why so many scientists are alarmed?

There aren't so many. The consensus was contrived.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Gee, Palerider, I could copy and paste what I've already posted, but something tells me that you will ignore it again.

I have a better idea. Since you haven't truly addressed my question of what you think the human act of releasing all that CO2 (and the toxic pollutants that go with it) into the atmosphere in such quantities and in such a short period of time does, if anything, to the planet and the life that lives on it, how about you address that instead.