Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Sat, 21 May 2016 05:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:37:41 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

Wrong.

No, it's not "wrong."

No, it's wrong. Pure and simple. You're being very selective again in
the evidence you choose to consider and what you choose to ignore.

That is, of course, characteristic of all science denialism. Right up
there with ignoring consensus, which is one of the foundations of
science.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 7:46:35 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2016 05:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:37:41 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2016 05:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

There is a correlation between the industrial age and CO2 increase, but
correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

Wrong.

No, it's not "wrong."

No, it's wrong.

What is it about the GENERAL case that you don't understand?

Pure and simple. You're being very selective again in the evidence you
choose to consider and what you choose to ignore.

I didn't CHOOSE to ignore anything. I merely stated that correlation does
not equal causation. The information that you provided on isotopic
concentration is a step toward establishing causation, but the evidence is
not conclusive.

You, OTOH, are choosing to ignore the possibility that CO2 from the oceans
may not have a higher 13C/12C ratio.

That is, of course, characteristic of all science denialism.

There you go again with your baloney "disagreement with your position equals
irrationality." I asked a simple question which you haven't answered:
"Wouldn't emission of CO2 from the ocean favor the lighter isotope?"

Right up there with ignoring consensus, which is one of the foundations
of science.

Consensus isn't always correct. THAT is another foundation of science.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/

"3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities� have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there
are experts."

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.� -- Richard P. Feynman

The uptake of 12C in plants is favored over 13C because it is a physical
process (CO2 with 12C is more mobile), then it seems quite logical that
uptake of 12C into the atmosphere from water would also be favored. Is
it? If it is, then a decrease in 13C in our atmosphere doesn't tell us
where the CO2 is coming from. One way to check this is to see if 13C is
being concentrated in the ocean. One could also take ocean water and see
if the ratio differs between evolved gas and dissolved gas.

You continue to ignore the science and focus on personal issues. That's
not science, that's baloney. Sagan's baloney detector tells us what NOT
to do:

"1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,� attacking the arguer and not the
argument"

"2. argument from authority"

And what AGW advocates also do:

"3. argument from adverse consequences"

I have proposed a way to answer the question, and I have proposed an alternate
solution to GW (whether A or not). What have YOU done other than try to
squelch discussion?

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:27:03 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I didn't CHOOSE to ignore anything. I merely stated that correlation does
not equal causation. The information that you provided on isotopic
concentration is a step toward establishing causation, but the evidence is
not conclusive.

The fact that industrial processes emit carbon dioxide is already very strong
evidence in favor of causation.

Holding people to the same standard in debating views coming from out in left
field as is appropriate for debating the conventional wisdom... is a recipe for
wasting time refuting every crank who comes along. The argument from authority
doesn't prove anything... and so the case in favor of AGW does need to be made
in the proper manner - but respecting the weight of authority allows us to do
that *once* instead of repeating the whole argument to every objector.

Aristotle, when enumerating the fallacies of argument, had yet to encounter
what we today know of as the "Gish gush", so he didn't list the ways in which
one can seem to be following all the rules and yet still be engaged in snowing
people under with confusing nonsense.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:15:19 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

He's a science denier. Although not yet in the DSM, that actually is
being increasingly recognized as a mental disorder. If you're
interested, google it. The findings are pretty interesting. The
disorder is related to belief in conspiracies.

Science is the new orthodoxy of our age.

I would tend to view science denial as divided into two main categories,
neither of which is a mental illness - deliberate deceit, and plain ignorance.

While scientific fact, unlike religious dogma, is indeed susceptible in theory
to universal assent, because they can be tested openly against reality, none
the less, classing science denial as a mental illness is uncomfortably close to
classing heresy as a mental illness.

Of course, a lot of science cranks are mentally ill, but that's another matter;
it doesn't mean that the kinds of science denial we see in such phenomena as
Creationism should be classed as mental illness. Not without placing the First
Amendment in grave jeopardy.

John Savard

On Sat, 21 May 2016 09:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Of course, a lot of science cranks are mentally ill, but that's another matter;
it doesn't mean that the kinds of science denial we see in such phenomena as
Creationism should be classed as mental illness. Not without placing the First
Amendment in grave jeopardy.

Recognizing and identifying certain things as mental disorders does
not jeopardize the First Amendment.

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:45:19 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:27:03 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I didn't CHOOSE to ignore anything. I merely stated that correlation does
not equal causation. The information that you provided on isotopic
concentration is a step toward establishing causation, but the evidence is
not conclusive.

The fact that industrial processes emit carbon dioxide is already very strong
evidence in favor of causation.

Yes, causation that at least part of the CO2 is coming from fossil fuels.
Much of that is also going into natural sinks, the ocean being the largest.
But what is coming OUT of the ocean?

Holding people to the same standard in debating views coming from out in
left field as is appropriate for debating the conventional wisdom... is a
recipe for wasting time refuting every crank who comes along. The argument
from authority doesn't prove anything... and so the case in favor of AGW
does need to be made in the proper manner - but respecting the weight of
authority allows us to do that *once* instead of repeating the whole
argument to every objector.

All I'm asking is, are we sure the CO2 evolved from the ocean doesn't favor
12C. This says it does:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16703785902455

"the carbon isotopic ratio of CO2 passed through the air/ sea interface is
estimated to be about −10 %. for air to sea and −8 % for sea to air" It
also states that the ratio of 13C to 12C in seawater is 2%. It is about
1.1% in the air, so seawater is definitely a concentrator of 13C. So more
12C is evolved from the oceans than 13C, even with twice as much 13C in the
water than in the air. Does this not say that the claim (that more 13C
comes from ocean water than from burning fossil fuels) is possibly bogus?

This paper is 30 years old. A more recent survey has been published 15
years ago:

http://store.elsevier.com/product.js...=9780444509468

but I'm not willing to pay 122 bucks to see it :-)

Aristotle, when enumerating the fallacies of argument, had yet to encounter
what we today know of as the "Gish gush", so he didn't list the ways in
which one can seem to be following all the rules and yet still be engaged
in snowing people under with confusing nonsense.

John Savard

I don't see how that applies to the present discussion. I'm certainly not
trying to snow anyone, but I see AGW advocates arguing from premises that
turn out to be very shaky. If anything, THEY are the ones in the crosshairs
for purveying "gish gush" :-|

Gary

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I see AGW advocates arguing from premises that turn out to be very shaky.
If anything, THEY are the ones in the crosshairs for purveying "gish gush" :-|

Gary

To demonstrate that climate science is not at all "settled":

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

"The primary goal of CLOUD is to understand the influence of galactic cosmic
rays (GCRs) on aerosols and clouds, and their implications for climate."

"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are poorly understood and yet
important for climate. Indeed, they are recognised by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) as the largest source of uncertainty in
present radiative forcing and in climate projections over the 21st century."

And these aerosols may have a major impact on models and predictions:



"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are thought to be important
for anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate, yet remain poorly
understood1. Globally, around half of cloud condensation nuclei originate
from nucleation of atmospheric vapours2. It is thought that sulfuric acid is
essential to initiate most particle formation in the atmosphere3, 4, and
that ions have a relatively minor role5. Some laboratory studies, however,
have reported organic particle formation without the intentional addition of
sulfuric acid, although contamination could not be excluded6, 7. Here we
present evidence for the formation of aerosol particles from highly oxidized
biogenic vapours in the absence of sulfuric acid in a large chamber under
atmospheric conditions."

So it appears that the climate models have been compromised by our ignorance
and will have to be modified.

Gary

On Monday, 6 June 2016 14:44:26 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I see AGW advocates arguing from premises that turn out to be very shaky.
If anything, THEY are the ones in the crosshairs for purveying "gish gush" :-|

Gary

To demonstrate that climate science is not at all "settled":

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

"The primary goal of CLOUD is to understand the influence of galactic cosmic
rays (GCRs) on aerosols and clouds, and their implications for climate."

"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are poorly understood and yet
important for climate. Indeed, they are recognised by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) as the largest source of uncertainty in
present radiative forcing and in climate projections over the 21st century."

And these aerosols may have a major impact on models and predictions:



"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are thought to be important
for anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate, yet remain poorly
understood1. Globally, around half of cloud condensation nuclei originate
from nucleation of atmospheric vapours2. It is thought that sulfuric acid is
essential to initiate most particle formation in the atmosphere3, 4, and
that ions have a relatively minor role5. Some laboratory studies, however,
have reported organic particle formation without the intentional addition of
sulfuric acid, although contamination could not be excluded6, 7. Here we
present evidence for the formation of aerosol particles from highly oxidized
biogenic vapours in the absence of sulfuric acid in a large chamber under
atmospheric conditions."

So it appears that the climate models have been compromised by our ignorance
and will have to be modified.

Gary

You took nearly three weeks to copy and paste your own quotes and still did not include the references?

For shame! ;-)

More seriously[?]

What proportion of total AGW may we ascribe to your thesis?

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:02:12 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

On Monday, 6 June 2016 14:44:26 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I see AGW advocates arguing from premises that turn out to be very shaky.
If anything, THEY are the ones in the crosshairs for purveying "gish
gush" :-|

Gary

To demonstrate that climate science is not at all "settled":

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

"The primary goal of CLOUD is to understand the influence of galactic
cosmic rays (GCRs) on aerosols and clouds, and their implications for
climate."

"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are poorly understood
and yet important for climate. Indeed, they are recognised by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) as the largest
source of uncertainty in present radiative forcing and in climate
projections over the 21st century."

And these aerosols may have a major impact on models and predictions:

"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are thought to be important
for anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate, yet remain poorly
understood1. Globally, around half of cloud condensation nuclei originate
from nucleation of atmospheric vapours2. It is thought that sulfuric acid is
essential to initiate most particle formation in the atmosphere3, 4, and
that ions have a relatively minor role5. Some laboratory studies, however,
have reported organic particle formation without the intentional addition of
sulfuric acid, although contamination could not be excluded6, 7. Here we
present evidence for the formation of aerosol particles from highly oxidized
biogenic vapours in the absence of sulfuric acid in a large chamber under
atmospheric conditions."

So it appears that the climate models have been compromised by our ignorance
and will have to be modified.

Gary

You took nearly three weeks to copy and paste your own quotes and still
did not include the references?

The references are in the original post. Are you too lazy to read them?
All I have done here is post new information that tops off the destructive
arguments against AGW.

For shame! ;-)

Yes, for shame that you were too afraid to respond to the original post.

More seriously[?]

What proportion of total AGW may we ascribe to your thesis?

I merely point out that climate science is not cut and dried, as certain
Chicken Littles would like us believe, and then you ask a question
which cannot be answered because it isn't settled? What kind of nonsense
question is that? Where is your rebuttal to the new information from CERN
which sends Chicken Little to Colonel Sanders?

On Monday, 6 June 2016 21:34:03 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I merely point out that climate science is not cut and dried, as certain
Chicken Littles would like us believe, and then you ask a question
which cannot be answered because it isn't settled? What kind of nonsense
question is that? Where is your rebuttal to the new information from CERN
which sends Chicken Little to Colonel Sanders?


I do not understand your repeated references to Small Chickens[?] CERN is deep enough not to be troubled by falling chickens of any known size. Is a Colonel Sanders another of those sugar-loaded, fizzy drinks the Americans so love? I seem to vaguely remember a Sergeant Pepper. Though that may have been sold in a smaller container than that of the Colonel variety.