Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

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).

Sorry guy, wiki is not a valid source. Anything to do with climate from them is suspect due to Connelly.

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.

I have posted this a couple of times now. Do you not believe it? Do you simply not care? Do you believe a man doing this to a source of data doesn't alter the credibility of that source?

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

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

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

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3427/...ys-Royal-Netherlands-Meteorological-Institute

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

I have checked the facts. That is why I said that ocean temperatures have been falling.

The only accurate method we have of tracking ocean temperatures is the Argos bouy system. They dive 700m, record the temperature, come back to the surface, and radio the data. There are 3000 of them scattered across the world's oceans. When they first went online, they showed a definite cooling trend, they were recalibrated to show a warming trend which they did for a short time and have gone back to reading a further cooling trend.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/april_09_co2_report.pdf

You really should learn to differentiate between actual observed data and computer projections. One is real the other is not.

What was it PCL said about the gullible?

I have shown petitions with thousands of scientist's signatures stating that they don't buy into the hypothesis. I have given you articles written by ipcc insiders and lead authors stating that the consensus has been contrived. What evidence do you have that there is a consensus?

 

[Gipper]

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.

Well said and I agree completely. Warming freaks believe the warming lies because they want socialism. Socialism is "fair" in their demented minds.

And Pale I admire your patience with a liberal hack. You are much more patient than most when dealing with ignorance.

The warmists just plain believe. The facts do not matter. They continue to proclaim "nearly all scientists believe in warming." This is a bold face lie. They claim that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect when the facts prove otherwise. They claim that man has filled the atmosphere with CO2, but the facts show otherwise.

Amazing how easy the left can be fooled by Marxist ploys. I need to devise another Marxist ploy to take all their money.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

What utter nonsense. There are two types of species. One is a specialist, such as an aardvark, which eats a specific type of food and lives in a specific environment. The other is the generalist, who can eat most anything and live most anywhere. One reason our species is so successful is that we are generalists. We can eat a lot of dsifferent types of food, and move into a lot of difference niches. So to suggest that if I can't say what the optimum temperature for us is that that somehow negates global warming is a completely meaningless statement. We aren't the only species that habitates this planet. Not only that, but it is because there are so many of us and we are living in so many different environments, that global warming can and likely will so adversely affect us. And that is because climate change is affecting environments across the board, dude. And if it is affecting us so broadly, imagine what it must be doing to the specialists of the world. Gee, for an alleged biochemist, you sure don't see to know much about biology.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

There is a current that flows around the Pacific. It comes out of east Asia and moves to the north. Coming out of east Asia, it is warm. When it gets to Alaska it is warm, and much like the Gulf stream moderates Europe's weather, this current warms southern Alaska to a degree not possible if that current did exist. But in moving north begins to cool so that in returning south, but this time off the coast of North America, it is cooler than it was. This cool part of the current moderates The west coast's otherwise hot climate.

This is geography 101.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Oh gee, you got me there, Palerider. I'm playing you like a fool. It's all a big conspiracy. Grow up, dude.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

Well, that question certainly doesn't make much sense now does it? When you figure out how to make observations BEFORE a phenomenon occurs, do let the rest of the world know. We can make predictions, though. That's what science does you know. You remember science. It's the stuff you learned when you were allegedly getting your degree in biochemiostry, right?

Well Plaerider, you sound just like a lot of those people who refused to leave when Katrina struck. Good luck, but I don't think the rest of us need be that ignorant.

 

[palerider]

There is a current that flows around the Pacific. It comes out of east Asia and moves to the north. Coming out of east Asia, it is warm. When it gets to Alaska it is warm, and much like the Gulf stream moderates Europe's weather, this current warms southern Alaska to a degree not possible if that current did exist. But in moving north begins to cool so that in returning south, but this time off the coast of North America, it is cooler than it was. This cool part of the current moderates The west coast's otherwise hot climate.

This is geography 101.


The summertime temperature can sometimes reach into the high 70's. Sometimes. Once more, do an audit and see how common air conditioning is there. Now ask people if they would continue to use AC if there were an arbitrary 25% tax placed on energy use. I know you don't want to admit it, but it is the excessive tax that is the ultimate cause of those deaths, not the heat.

 

[palerider]

Oh gee, you got me there, Palerider. I'm playing you like a fool. It's all a big conspiracy. Grow up, dude.

I don't see you posting any evidence to the contrary. Your constant tongue in cheek claim of "a big conspiracy" is no more and no less than an appeal to ridicule. A common logical fallacy among those who are unable to actually substantiate their claims.

From the Nizkor Project:

Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).

Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.

 

[palerider]

Well, that question certainly doesn't make much sense now does it? When you figure out how to make observations BEFORE a phenomenon occurs,

That is precisely what climate scientists are claiming that they can do. They treat their simulaitons as if they were real world evidence and the press reports the results of those simulaitons as if they were real, and people like you come to places like this arguing the results of simulations in the belief that you are arguing observed evidence.

Most of the "facts" you have presented have been the result of piss poor simulations, not hard observed fact.

 

[palerider]

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.

And in a worldwide oubreak of volcanic activity, all of them were associated with flood bassalts? Name the locations please.

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.

Never been there. I guess you are an old hand as I am repeatedly posting study after study and hard observed evidence that rebutts your belief and you just continue on your merry way completely unable to substantiate your claims with any hard observed evidence.

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.

So its a thousand years except for the bulk of the cycle which is orders of magnitude longer. The fact is that you beleived that CO2 molecules resided in the atmosphere for 100 years and the fact that they don't invalidate your line of thought regarding man's CO2 output since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The IPCC is the only place you could have got the 100 year figure because the only claim of 100 years came from there. You were duped and you are just too damned proud to admit it.

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.

Yeah, and I guess Katrina was a minor storm.

As to your claim that it is fact that global warming is likely substantially caused by humans, I call BS. Lets see the hard observed evidence. Lets see the facts that prove the claim. Lets see the evidence that produces the hard link between our activities and the climate.

It is pointless to make claims that we both know you can not substantiate with any real evidence.

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

I asked you to list 1 hard observed proof. You couldn't so you post a 6 minute video of dickwad who also can't name one hard observed proof. Thanks.

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.

I have. Here are comments to the study upon which your article was based. Seems there were problems and no rebuttal to the comment has been forthcoming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18239108

And note that the saturation you claimed was once again, the result of a simulation, not hard observed data.

First of all, you aksed me to prove that the percentage is correct (prove it,was the phrase you used).

That is not what I asked at all. Here is my quote:

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.

I asked you to prove that the increase was unprecedented. As I expected, you can't prove it so instead, you attempt to alter what I said and attack your strawman.

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.

One doesn't conceed when one has the materials to substantiate one's claim.

Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.

Esper, J., Frank, D., Buntgen, U., Verstege, A., Luterbacher, J. and Xoplaki, E. 2007. Long-term drought severity variations in Morocco. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL030844.

Huffman, T.N. 1996. Archaeological evidence for climatic change during the last 2000 years in southern Africa. Quaternary International 33: 55-60.

Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.

Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258.

Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245.

Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003. Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Holocene 13: 251-263.

Hall, B.L., Hoelzel, A.R., Baroni, C., Denton, G.H., Le Boeuf, B.J., Overturf, B. and Topf, A.L. 2006. Holocene elephant seal distribution implies warmer-than-present climate in the Ross Sea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 10,213-10,217.

Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317.

Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeoenvironmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208.

Eden, D.N and Page, M.J. 1998. Palaeoclimatic implications of a storm erosion record from late Holocene lake sediments, North Island, New Zealand. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 139: 37-58.

Arseneault, D. and Payette, S. 1997. Reconstruction of millennial forest dynamics from tree remains in a subarctic tree line peatland. Ecology 78: 1873-1883.

Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change 36: 17-29.

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reech, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28.

Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307.

Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M. 2007. 1400 yr multiproxy record of climate variability from the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geology 35: 423-426.

Richter, T.O., Peeters, F.J.C. and van Weering, T.C.E. 2009. Late Holocene (0-2.4 ka BP) surface water temperature and salinity variability, Feni Drift, NE Atlantic Ocean. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 1941-1955.

Barron, J.A. and Bukry, D. 2007. Solar forcing of Gulf of California climate during the past 2000 yr suggested by diatoms and silicoflagellates. Marine Micropaleontology 62: 115-139.

Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R. 2004. Generation, transport, and preservation of the alkenone-based U37K' sea surface temperature index in the water column and sediments of the Cariaco Basin (Venezuela). Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: 10.1029/2003GB002132.

Sepulveda, J., Pantoja, S., Hughen, K.A., Bertrand, S., Figueroa, D., Leon, T., Drenzek, N.J. and Lange, C. 2009. Late Holocene sea-surface temperature and precipitation variability in northern Patagonia, Chile (Jacaf Fjord, 44°S). Quaternary Research 72: 400-409.

Black, D. E., Thunell, R. C., Kaplan, A., Peterson, L. C. and Tappa, E. J. 2004. A 2000-year record of Caribbean and tropical North Atlantic hydrographic variability. Paleoceanography 19, PA2022, doi:10.1029/2003PA000982.

Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C. 2005. El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years. Paleoceanography 20: 10.1029/2004PA001099.

There are 23 peer reviewed and published studies from areas covering the globe all noting the medieval warm period was warmer than the present. I can provide literally dozens more. Face it, mann attempted to disappear the medieval warm period because its existence puts an irreparable dent in the present agw hypothesis. You have been duped yet again. You really should be pissed.

 

[PLC1]

While it is interesting to read Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservatives by debating global climate change, I'd like to get this thread back on track. The AGW hypothesis has been already thrashed to a bloody pulp on this forum, and there is nothing new to be said on the matter. Moreover, there is a thread on evolution already.

Now, that conservatives do reject those three theories has been established beyond a doubt, but is it really necessary to do so? There really is no connection between science and most of the conservative points. Evolution and a balanced federal budget, for example, are in totally separate categories, as are evolution (science) and intelligent design (philosophy).

Perhaps what needs to be done is to start a poll. While not a scientific poll by any means, an internet poll on this website will at least give us an idea of whether self described conservatives on this site think that rejection of scientific theories is a requirement for credentials as a conservative.

Look for the first poll here.

 

[Gipper]

While it is interesting to read Palerider and Gipper support my hypothesis that conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservatives by debating global climate change, I'd like to get this thread back on track.

Not a chance THC.

You just wrote...."all conservatives must reject at least three scientific theories in order to be considered conservative by debating global climate change..."

Do you have any clue how absurd that statement is???? - guess not -

You must be hitting the bong big time today or could it be you are just a liberal partisan???

See cons - libs like THC do not want ANY debate. We must accept their insane lies as fact.

 

[orogenicman]

Here is some actual data for you.

http://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-cooling-skeptic-arguments-drowned-by-data.html

The oceans store approximately 80% of all the energy in the Earth’s climate, so ocean temperatures are a key indicator for global warming. So how much heat is building up in the world's oceans?

Source: Levitus 2009

Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be ‘monotonic’ – temperatures rising in straight lines – ignores the fact that nature doesn’t work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern. (Other well-known cyclic phenomena like El Nino and La Nina play a part in these complex interactions).

There are, however, disputes about the accuracy of Argo buoys and expendable measuring devices dropped into the sea, and the reporting of temperatures down to only 700 metres. How do scientists resolve these kind of disputes – bearing in mind that such disputes are the very stuff of science, the essence of true scepticism? One way is to find more data sources – different ways of measuring the phenomenon in dispute. By using results from seven different teams of scientists, all using different tools and methods, we are able to see a clear trend. And while there is variation between team results due to the differences in technique and measurement methods, one thing they all agree on: long term, temperatures are going up.

Source: Lyman 2010

The reaction of the oceans to climate change are some of the most profound across the entire environment, including disruption of the ocean food chain through chemical changes caused by CO2, the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 being limited by temperature increases, (and the potential to expel sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere as the water gets hotter), sea-level rise due to thermal expansion, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.

While there is a great deal we don’t know about how the oceans behave, we do however know that it’s safer to discuss all aspects of climate change using multiple sets of data, rather than just one, as Pielke Sr did. If ocean heat is a guide, then global warming is still on track to cause great disruption if we don’t modify our actions to reduce the release of anthropogenic CO2.

Claims that global warming is not happening on the basis of short-term ocean temperatures are not supported by the evidence.

 

[orogenicman]

Well said and I agree completely. Warming freaks believe the warming lies because they want socialism. Socialism is "fair" in their demented minds.

And Pale I admire your patience with a liberal hack. You are much more patient than most when dealing with ignorance.

The warmists just plain believe. The facts do not matter. They continue to proclaim "nearly all scientists believe in warming." This is a bold face lie. They claim that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect when the facts prove otherwise. They claim that man has filled the atmosphere with CO2, but the facts show otherwise.

Amazing how easy the left can be fooled by Marxist ploys. I need to devise another Marxist ploy to take all their money.

Then you do it because it is the right thing to do. Wasteful energy policies help no one except those who profit from such waste. And everyone knows that they aren't in it for our benefit. Ask the people who live on the Gulf of Mexico, or in Appalachia. And your Marxist ploy gag is just more evidence that people who think that way have Marx tourettes syndrome.

 

[orogenicman]

This is geography 101.


The summertime temperature can sometimes reach into the high 70's. Sometimes. Once more, do an audit and see how common air conditioning is there. Now ask people if they would continue to use AC if there were an arbitrary 25% tax placed on energy use. I know you don't want to admit it, but it is the excessive tax that is the ultimate cause of those deaths, not the heat.

Palerider, that is just so much BS. What it is with conservatives and taxes? Everything bad that happens in your little world is because of taxes, and your solution to all of the world's ills is to get rid of "evil" taxes. It seems to be a symptom of what I like to call political OCD, or the blindered horse syndrome.