arctic ice increases 60%

To paraphrase what the good guy has said in so many Westerns: You can't hang a man without proof. That would be a lynching and that just ain't right.

 

Yeah but a better way of putting it would be to say we're aiming to prevent the dude getting hanged. Once he's hanged, we wont be able to un-hang him.

 

The "dude" in this case is "capitalism".

 

That analogy wont work. The reason why the majority of civilization forbids the death penalty is that proof of guilt may never be reliable.

Human interference with the climate does not need conclusive proof ...scientific theory is enough

 

Theory alone is inadequate to convince me to change our entire culture. If you can't produce definitive proof I won't pull the trap-door lever.

 

Nobody is planning on destroying capitalism. It's not necesary to destroy capitalism to mitigate climate change. In fact, it'll open new possibilities for business if it's approached with a bit of brains.

 

Who says you have to change your entire culture?

And what would you consider proof? Take the worst case predictions (around 4 degrees warming by later this century). If you are not going to believe that is possible until you see it happening, what you're effectively saying is that you wont believe driving off a cliff is fatal until somebody drives you off a cliff. That doesn't seem like a good approach to me.

The thing is, it's not just theory. The effects are already measurable, and it's only early days yet. As the saying goes, things are just starting to warm up.

As just one example, take coccolithophores. Cocco what? Coccolithophores. They're little algae that live in the ocean, but they have shells made of calcium carbonate. If the ocean pH gets too low they can't make shells. If they can't make shells, they die.

Why should you care? Because they make around half the oxygen you breathe, and they're already having trouble making their shells. Why? Because the amount of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is lowering the ocean's pH.

This is not theory. It's real world data.

 

I am wasting my time here. Bye bye.

 

PROMISE?

 

He can't answer because of the 'promise' . .

Cheers,
Angel

 

No, the term being used is isotopic mass-balance (which may be the same as isotope ratios??), and is the ratio between C12 and C13, not C14. A person named Tom Segalstad seems to be the main proponent of this idea. I can't find much corroborating or contradicting evidence for his idea. Google "Tom Segalstad" "mass balance".

 

Very good! Now peruse his thoughts on the great bogeyman of 'oceanic acidifcation'.

Reader's Digest version:

For 100 years the accepted science was that 'excess' dissolved CO2 in a brine solution (gee, like the ocean?) precipitated out as calcium carbonate. This was even taught in textbooks! Then along comes the AGW scaremongers and nope, that chemical reaction is now not happening. Meanwhile, there's been no giant breakthrough (repudiation, really) of basic chemistry such that the previous understanding of these reactions is now obsolete, they are just inconvenient to the narrative.

Again more crap. More abandonment of previously proven science in favor of garbage.

Jimbo

 

Since I'm not an expert in the area that Tom Segalstad has done research in I have to take a less certain method of determining whether what he says makes sense or not. That method is to see what other researchers in his field say. So far I haven't been able to find other comments on the topic. Perhaps you can direct me to other sources?

Because I've not found other quality sources of information I am provisionally skeptical about what he says, not because I have direct information that contradicts his conclusions, but because no one else seems to think his research is worth either corroborating, or even commenting on. That doesn't mean that Segalstad is wrong, but it is a point to consider.

One other piece of information I did found out about Segalstad is that he has been a presenter for the Heartland Institute symposiums. I realize it's guilt by association, but that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Heartland is about the last place I'd look to for accurate information.

And finally, you are quick to use the 'C' word, but slow to provide references for your point of view. Again, not proof of error, but not a good sign either.

 

Segalstad's research on the oceanic chemistry is not original; he simply compiles what was accepted, 'done deal' basic chemistry, even taught in textbooks as I mentioned until the AGW alarm craze took over. Then everyone in the so-called scientific community conveniently 'forgot' about it. He even has a photcopy of a textbook page on his site to prove it was once taught and taken for granted.

The LAST place I would look for accurate data is the UN's IPCC or any studies that it has funded. That is a completely political organization.

I posted all of the citations on the old thread. The posts were tens of thousands of words long and I really don't care to repeat, sorry.

And so it goes for each and every one of the AGW assertions. The CO2 rise from 'incidental' terrestrial emissions is impossible by our understanding of atmospheric physics. As pointed out in the old thread, such a phenomenon would require the burning of more fossil fuels (like 5-10X more) than ALL the fossil fuel contained in the earth, something that clearly has not happened.

The present earth's atmosphere cannot be forensically reconstructed using the assertions of the AGW narrative, as I've pointed out. There is not enough CO2; we should be at 800-1000ppm which we clearly are not. We should be 25-30% 'fossil' CO2, which we are not; we're at no more than 2%, and that's being generous. These are glaring errors that should concern you. The corroborative evidence is missing at every turn. Can this just be a coincidence?

Jimbo

 

Yeah that's the same thing as isotope ratios. AFAICT from a quick look, there seem to be more people against his idea than for it.

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

If Segalstad's work on this hasn't even been peer-reviewed, that says a lot. Don't know if he tried to submit it to any journal.