Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[orogenicman]

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.

Actually, I believe that is incorret. I think it is more like 1,000 years, except for the rock cycle portion, which is not really what we are talking about here. But even at 1,000 years, it doesn't get you where you want to go, because they simply means that the dwell time is that much longer. The fact is (and this is confirmed by the Hawaii data) that we are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than the carbon cycle can take out. That is why we are seeing a steady increase in atmospheric concentrations.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Most of the problems have been minor, and none of those problems change the fact that global warming is real and likely caused substantially by human actions.

 

[orogenicman]

Name 1 hard observed proof.

Here is a short video by another biologist who can explain it far better to the lay person than I can:

 

[orogenicman]

Name 1 hard observed proof.

Here is a short video by another biologist who can explain it far better to the lay person than I can:


Watch all of it, particularly the last part.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Carl Sagan's weren't, and neither was Darwins' for that matter. What the biologic world looks like is natural selection. That is exactly what it looks like because that is what it is.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Gee, Palerider, for someone who claims to be a biochemist, I would have thought you'd have kept more up to date with the research. Nasty habit among your deniers.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37774

 

[orogenicman]

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.

First of all, you aksed me to prove that the percentage is correct (prove it,was the phrase you used). I then posted the Hawaai data which shows conclusively tha thr percentage is on target. Secondly, now you are moving the goalpost and asking me whyt I chose 400,000 years. You know why - the Vostok data. 7,000 ppm? In the past 400,000 years? Or at any time in the past 500 million years? What is it that you said to me?

Oh yeah. Prove it.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Certainly you can post them here. And then I can read them and post the published refutations. Or we can both concede that this is an area of research is much in contention. Your choice.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

My priest? Paelrider, let me ask you a couple of honest questions and I expect you to give me some honest answers, if you are able. Have you ever attended college? Was your major biochemistry? What degrees did you earn? Do you work in that field currently? If so, do your colleagues know that you refer to them as "priests"?

To answer your question, yes I am certain that your question was unintelligible. If you are asking me if some sun cycle is causing global warming, the answer is no it isn't. And let me be clear, the answer is difinitively NO.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I've been reading that literature for years, which is what makes rthis so easy.

Oh, and you don't get off that easy. When you come back I expect a real answer, not deflection.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Oh, I almost forgot. milankovitch cycles.

 

[palerider]

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.

You keep seeing that but remain completely unable to prove in any way that the climate is presently at the optimum temperature for our habitation. Unless you can prove the point, you are merely crying that the sky is falling.

 

[palerider]

"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.

Do an audit of anchorage alaska and see how many homes don't have AC. You want to tell me it gets very hot there as well? Don't bother, I lived there and can tell you that it doesn't. It is the excessive energy taxes imposed on europeans that make air conditioning a rarity.

 

[palerider]

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.

So you pose the example based on a bad hypothesis and no actual evidence at all in hopes that you might fool me, or what?

 

[palerider]

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.

And what is your point? Since we can't stop any future sea level rise any more than we could stop the previous 500 feet, I don't know what you are getting at. Do you want them to build dikes? Do you want them to move the capital? Do you want to blast the ice into outer space one shuttle mission at a time? What do you want? If you want to alter my way of life so that the CO2 won't melt the ice caps based on a hypothesis that is not supported by hard observed evidence, I am not going to come along peacefully.

Question. Based on observational evidence (as opposed to computer simulations) how much sea level rise do you expect in this century?