Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

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.

I suppose the sulfur compounds, and greatly increased relative humidity resulting from a worldwide oubreak of volcanoes wouldn't have anything to do with it?

 

[orogenicman]

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

Not to me you didn't.

 

[palerider]

Even if you could disprove evolution, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that intelligent design is the right answer.

I have no burden of proof, It belongs to you because you are making the claim. I am only asking questions which you have no satisfactory answers to. If you have no answers, you have no working theory.

 

[palerider]

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

So you still believe it resides in the atmosphere 100 years? Your claim that the cycle is in the neighborhood of a hundred years is laughable as that cycle is measured in geological time. You got caught believing in a lie and now can't bear to admit it. And no you got caugt claiming that good evidence could convince you when really it can't. You just shuck and jive and dodge and weave hoping that your original premise might be forgotten.

 

[orogenicman]

"[BRadiation 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. [/B]

If you ignore the effects of this emitted raditation on other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and methane, and the fact that the radiation stays close to the surface (as indicated by satellite measurments) you might have a point. See, the laws of thermodynamics are quirky that way. They work for ALL known elements and compounds.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Did you read the UN report that came out recently that criticised the IPCC aqnd made recommendations for changes? Are you saying that every science organization is perfect except the IPCC? If you are, I have news for you...

 

[orogenicman]

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.

If you "know" that there were no proofs offered, then you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry I can't be kind about this.

 

[palerider]

Did you read the UN report that came out recently that criticised the IPCC aqnd made recommendations for changes? Are you saying that every science organization is perfect except the IPCC? If you are, I have news for you...

The problems there are systemic and chronic and have been for a very long time. Everything they say is suspect.

 

[palerider]

If you "know" that there were no proofs offered, then you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry I can't be kind about this.

Name 1 hard observed proof.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

The oceans are the largest reservoir of carbon on the planet. And yet here you are blowing themn off as they don't even exist. The interaction of the atmosphere with the oceans is the most important life-giving process on the planet.

The Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarcica is seen to be nearing or has reached it's saturation point with repect to CO2. This is vitally important since it is th elargest sink of CO2 because CO2 dissolves more readily in cold water than it does in warm water. When it stops absorbing more CO2, you can expect global temperatures to rising even more dramatically than trhey already have, in the southern hemisphere first, and then the northern hemisphere. Butof course, for you, the oceans are irrelevant, right?

Burning oil and coal releases carbon into the atmosphere far more rapidly than it is being removed, and this imbalance causes atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to increase. In addition, by clearing forests, we reduce the ability of photosynthesis to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, also resulting in a net increase. Because of these human activities, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are higher today than they have been over the last half-million years or longer.

 

[palerider]

If you "know" that there were no proofs offered, then you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry I can't be kind about this.

You claim to be familar with the arguments and believe that proofs were offered. Hume's first line of reasoning was that the universe was more like an amimal than a watch. He reasoned that the universe could reproduce itself.

From Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

The world, says he, resembles the works of human contrivance; therefore its cause must also resemble that of the other. Here we may remark, that the operation of one very small part of nature, to wit man, upon another very small part, to wit that inanimate matter lying within his reach, is the rule by which Cleanthes judges of the origin of the whole; and he measures objects, so widely disproportioned, by the same individual standard. But to waive all objections drawn from this topic, I affirm, that there are other parts of the universe (besides the machines of human invention) which bear still a greater resemblance to the fabric of the world, and which, therefore, afford a better conjecture concerning the universal origin of this system. These parts are animals and vegetables. The world plainly resembles more an animal or a vegetable, than it does a watch or a knitting-loom. Its cause, therefore, it is more probable, resembles the cause of the former. The cause of the former is generation or vegetation. The cause, therefore, of the world, we may infer to be something similar or analogous to generation or vegetation

And he reasoned that the universe reproduced itself by:

In like manner as a tree sheds its seeds into the neighbouring fields, and produces other trees; so the great vegetable, the world, or this planetary system, produces within itself certain seeds, which, being scattered into the surrounding chaos, vegetate into new worlds. A comet, for instance, is the seed of a world; and after it has been fully ripened, by passing from sun to sun, and star to star, it is at last tossed into the unformed elements which every where surround this universe, and immediately sprouts up into a new system.

Does that describe any universe you know about? The man is speaking out of ignorance. The only proof there is that he didn't have a clue as to what goes on outside of earth's atmosphere.

Hume disergarded the watchmaker analogy because he didn't think that the universe looked like a watch. That is to say a precision instrument. He was blissfully unware of the laws of physics upon which even a small adjustment would result in an entirely different sort of universe.

His so called proofs were absolutely wrong.

 

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

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.

Palerider

Prove it.

Alrighty, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
No natural phenonemon can explain it.

Prove it.

Do you know of any natural process that explains it? any at all?

 

[palerider]

The Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarcica is seen to be nearing or has reached it's saturation point with repect to CO2.

Prove it. I believe once again, you are operating on assumption rather than any hard observable fact. Nasty habit among you warmists.

 

[orogenicman]

"The roman warm period and the medieval warm period were both warmer than the present"

Both of which only affected Europe, and possibly parts of Asia. Europe is not a good model because fluxuations in the Atlantic current affect it differently than the globe as a whole.

 

[palerider]

Prove it.

Alrighty, then.

And exactly how does your chart prove that the increase is "unprecedented". We both know that it isn't which leads you to jump immediately to 400,000 years which leads me to ask why you choose 400,000 years to which you ignore the answer that if you go back more than 400,000 years, you see CO2 levels as high as 7000 ppm and no runaway global warming and ice ages with higher CO2 levels than the present and all manner of evidence that CO2 is not a driver of the climate.

Your chart shows change. It does not prove that the change is unprecedented.