Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

"The sun certainly has an effect".

Nothing the sun is doing now, or in the recent past can explain the long term trend in global temperatures that we are currently experiencing. This is quite conclusive.

 

[orogenicman]

"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."

So you're solution for the hundreds of millions of people who live along the equator (most of whom are dirt poor) is to put more insulation in their attics (assuming they even have one). Ditto for all those hundreds of millions of poor people who live in surge-prone areas near sea level? Is this all you have? Do you own an insulation company? Is this why you made this, erm, recommendation?

 

[palerider]

"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.

Should I show you a dozen or so peer reviewed studies that show that the medieval warm period was also evident in Africa, Antarctica, Australia, New Zealand, North America, South America, the Pacific, and the Arctic or would you simply disregard them because they invalidate your claims of unprecedented climate change?

 

[palerider]

"The sun certainly has an effect".

Nothing the sun is doing now, or in the recent past can explain the long term trend in global temperatures that we are currently experiencing. This is quite conclusive.

Are you sure? Are you sure that the sun isn't following a cycle that coincides with a cycle here? I know your priests wouldn't mention it, but are you sure that that isn't what is happening?

Explain why the warming started 14,000 years ago and explain why continued warming is unexpected.

 

[palerider]

So you're solution for the hundreds of millions of people who live along the equator (most of whom are dirt poor) is to put more insulation in their attics (assuming they even have one). Ditto for all those hundreds of millions of poor people who live in surge-prone areas near sea level? Is this all you have? Do you own an insulation company? Is this why you made this, erm, recommendation?

Since CO2 isn't the cause of climate change, what is your suggestion?

Going to bed. I get up early. I will pick this up when I get a chance. In the mean time, you might look at some of the skeptical literature. You will find much better science there.

 

[orogenicman]

"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."

The problem with this argument is that you are assuming that the biota that existed during those warming period exist today. They don't. And in fact, much of the biota (Particularly those that existed at it's end) came straight out of the last ice age, or evolved soon therafter. As I recall, the current warming period wasn't too kind to the ice age megafauna, or the planet life it depended on.

The fact is that climate change always poses risks for species that experience them. We are seeing that even today. And we are no different.

 

[orogenicman]

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

And yet just across San Fransisco Bay, Oakland gets VERY hot in the summer, and most people do have air conditioners. The difference? The cold Pacific Ocean, which moderates the weather in San Fransisco. It does so because the current that runs along that coast comes straight from Alaska. Built in air conditioning. And that current doesn't fluxuate like the Atlantic current does. Not yet, at any rate. My ex-wife is from SF, and I've been there many times.

 

[orogenicman]

"[BAnd 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? [/B]

No, actually, I don't. But that is because neither does anyone else yet. They are still analyzing the data. What I have heard is that the current El Nino has two involved currents instead of the usual one. As far as I know, they haven't discerned why that is yet, but it apparently has been playing havock on global weather patterns.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Would it surprise you to know that the Pentagon is about 7 feet above sea level? Ditto for most buildings in D.C. and New York and many other cities along the Eastern seaboard. And in fact, there are hundreds of millions of people who live near sea level worldwide. And do I need to point out? They didn't live there when the sea rose after the last ice age.

 

[orogenicman]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993–2003).

 

[orogenicman]

"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."

Ah yes, damn the torpedoes and get me another bloody mary. If there is no profit in it, to hell with the poor slobs in the street, eh? What a great, compassionate, Christian attitude you have.

 

[orogenicman]

" Are you aware that the ocean temperatures have been falling?"

Are you aware that that is untrue? You should check your facts.

 

[orogenicman]

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

What was it PCL said about the gullible?

 

[orogenicman]

"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?"

Sulfur aerosols released by volcanoes tend to decrease the temperature (as we saw with Mt. Pinatubo, not increase it). And those aerosols are discharge most prevalantly by andesitic volcanoes, not volcanoes associated with flood basalts. There is a good reason for this but that is for another thread. So the answer to your question is no.

 

[orogenicman]

"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"

Let me quess. You used to post on the old ATT forum. Right? I only ask because there were a lot of people there who also completely ignored what is posted and just go about their merry way as if the conversation had never happened.