Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

[sculptor]

 

[paddoboy]

And you want to make me believe that 5 (or even 10) mm/year sea-level rise played a role there, instead of coastal erosion being the completely sufficient explanation for the fate of these islands?




Fighting the liars - the Western media. Their lies are murderous. See what their lies have supported - a murderous fascist regime starting a civil war in Ukraine, murderous jihadist terror gangs in Libya, Syria, and other countries.

I do not care about agendas, I care about arguments.

Your often used phrases of "I do not care" is profound and says much about you, not just in this discipline, but generally speaking.
And once again ignoring the logic that if there is any doubt, we must err on the side of caution. Thank Christ that the majority of scientists can see through your agenda, and thankfully increasing with the general populace..

 

[iceaura]

The man-made contributions have positive as well as negative consequences, and it would be the job of science to find out what is more important.

And that job is being done, diligently and thoroughly - the negative consequences of AGW for the next few hundred years at least will most likely be disastrous in a variety of ways, far more important than the comparatively minor positive ones.

But it looks to me that the central problems caused by global warming are not that complex,

But you are wrong about that - almost completely ignorant, and trapped in a bubble of falsehoods so obvious as to be comical. So almost nothing is as it looks to you - you even got the direction of financial pressure on US scientists backwards, the hottest places on earth misidentified, the nature of the predictions from research anyone can read for themselves so completely muddled as to present your reader with a real puzzle = = = =

For example, the solution to switch to crops which are more adequate for a new climate seems quite simple.

Not to the informed. Not to anyone who knows what they are talking about.

But those who compute the harm caused by warming use theoretical models where no such thing will be done.

Nonsense. It's already being done, and has been for decades now. = = = =
namely: Why haven't you read any of the scientific literature in these matters? Why do you insist on posting from ignorance, and maintaining that ignorance?

 

[Schmelzer]

And that job is being done, diligently and thoroughly - the negative consequences of AGW for the next few hundred years at least will most likely be disastrous in a variety of ways, far more important than the comparatively minor positive ones.

At least this is what you claim - without providing any evidence. As usual. The usual bs about "you are wrong" without any evidence disposed of.

Nonsense. It's already being done, and has been for decades now.

Feel free to provide a link. I would be very interested.

Why haven't you read any of the scientific literature in these matters?

Incorrect question. In particular, I read usually all the scientific literature which my opponents in discussions provide. In discussions with competent opponents, some such references will appear very fast.

 

[billvon]

At least this is what you claim - without providing any evidence. As usual.

Bad effects of climate change include mass extinctions. We know this because the last time we saw warming anywhere near as rapid, it wiped out much of Earth's life; it was the worst mass extinction we've ever seen.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/eaat1327

https://earthsky.org/earth/great-dying-252-million-years-ago-concided-with-co2-build-up

Note that the warming we are seeing now is faster.

 

[Schmelzer]

Bad effects of climate change include mass extinctions.

Of course. A triviality. It depends on the size of the change, and of the species living at that time. They may be quite fast and even quite large without mass extinction too. The increase in temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was also quite impressive, but I'm not aware of corresponding mass extinctions.

 

[paddoboy]

Ignoring some of the agenda laden idiocy and the "fuck you I'm alright Jack" attitude in this thread, it's a known fact that records world wide, are being broken, evidence is continually being found that show without any reasonable doubt, that we are experiencing human induced climate change. The vast majority of scientists are aware of that, and a growing number of lay people are becoming aware.
And even if doubt did exist, then the fact that we would be only caring humans to make sure we err [if we have to] on the side of caution.
Not all of us are caring humans though.

 

[iceaura]

At least this is what you claim - without providing any evidence.

Much more evidence from me than from you. And much less silly claims.

Feel free to provide a link. I would be very interested.

Did. Several times. You weren't.
If you are interested now, you can easily find info on your own.

The increase in temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was also quite impressive, but I'm not aware of corresponding mass extinctions.

Your lack of awareness is not evidence of anything - you haven't been paying attention.

The increase in temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was about 1/10th as fast as AGW - and mass extinctions accompanied it (dozens of large mammals and birds went extinct in NA) . But most researchers think the warming itself did not cause the extinctions, or not many of them - they think other factors were important.
In other words, contrary to your repeated claims, AGW researchers do not blame all bad news on warming.

 

[Schmelzer]

Did. Several times. You weren't. If you are interested now, you can easily find info on your own.

A lie. Link the several posts with the links to prove it is not.

Your lack of awareness is not evidence of anything - you haven't been paying attention.
The increase in temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was about 1/10th as fast as AGW - and mass extinctions accompanied it (dozens of large mammals and birds went extinct in NA) . But most researchers think the warming itself did not cause the extinctions, or not many of them - they think other factors were important.
In other words, contrary to your repeated claims, AGW researchers do not blame all bad news on warming.

I think so too. But, more importantly, I have not blamed any researchers. How often I have to repeat that most of my objections are not against researchers, but against the mass media?

 

[paddoboy]

I think so too. But, more importantly, I have not blamed any researchers. How often I have to repeat that most of my objections are not against researchers, but against the mass media?

Which mass media is that? The one that don't fit your political agenda?
Certainly the mass media in general, make many basic errors and mistakes and also are responsible for what could be described as hysteria. But you seem to be taking the exact opposite tack and trivializing the subject of actual human induced climate change. Then you attempt to soften that stance somewhat with claims that you are not blaming or criticising the scientists, only the media, without understanding that the media, despite their faults, are just reporting the scientific results, predictions and probable future outcomes.

 

[iceaura]

I think so too. But, more importantly, I have not blamed any researchers. How often I have to repeat that most of my objections are not against researchers, but against the mass media?

Doesn't matter how often you repeat that, it won't come true.

You have been denying the findings of AGW researchers, throughout. You have been objecting to the findings of AGW researchers, throughout. You have rejected the findings of AGW researchers on the grounds that they conflict with your presumptions of physical reality, that they are products of political and financial pressure to support a world government agenda, that they are speculative and unsupported by data,
and so forth, consistently and frequently, throughout.

And you appear to have had no idea what you were talking about, when you did that. You apparently know almost nothing about the science, the physical reality, or even the financial and political pressure, involved. You get them wrong, always.

And you get them wrong in exactly the same way the US Republican Party's propaganda operations misrepresent them - same arguments, same vocabulary, same presumptions, same bs. This you declare to be coincidence - great minds thinking alike, making the same obvious mistakes and subject to the same blockheaded delusions by chance alone.

That isn't very likely. It isn't very likely in your case, or in the case of any of the other similar posters on these forums. Errors in common / source in common - that is much more likely.

 

[Schmelzer]

Which mass media is that? The one that don't fit your political agenda?

All of them. Of course, given that I despise them in general, it is possible that there are some exceptions, which I have never seen. Feel free to give me, say, a youtube link to something about climate shown in some mass medium which adequately describes also the positive effects of warming.

But you seem to be taking the exact opposite tack and trivializing the subject of actual human induced climate change. Then you attempt to soften that stance somewhat with claims that you are not blaming or criticising the scientists, only the media, without understanding that the media, despite their faults, are just reporting the scientific results, predictions and probable future outcomes.

The problem is that the media don't just report the scientific results. They lie about them, intentionally.

Iceaura repeats the old lie that I'm an AGW denier, despite the fact that I have never questioned that there is a warming or that humans are responsible for it. Together with the "you know nothing" and "you repeat Rep propaganda" nonsense. Boring.

 

[billvon]

Of course. A triviality.

"Mass extinctions" are "a triviality." Fascinating use of language! Was the Holocaust a minor bump in the road? The Black Plague a case of the sniffles?

It depends on the size of the change, and of the species living at that time. They may be quite fast and even quite large without mass extinction too. The increase in temperature at the end of the last Ice Age was also quite impressive, but I'm not aware of corresponding mass extinctions.

Google "Holocene Extinction." Sixth largest in history. But that's probably trivial to you as well.

 

[Quantum Quack]

All of them. Of course, given that I despise them in general, it is possible that there are some exceptions, which I have never seen. Feel free to give me, say, a youtube link to something about climate shown in some mass medium which adequately describes also the positive effects of warming.

The problem is that the media don't just report the scientific results. They lie about them, intentionally.

Iceaura repeats the old lie that I'm an AGW denier, despite the fact that I have never questioned that there is a warming or that humans are responsible for it. Together with the "you know nothing" and "you repeat Rep propaganda" nonsense. Boring.

I am not sure you have thought this through properly.
I fail to see anything positive coming out of this climate evolution.
There is not a farmer in the world that is not troubled by climate uncertainty. Climate change just increases that uncertainty significantly.
Say we have a wheat farm of large acerage. Say that farm has been growing wheat for a few generations and is tooled up for wheat production. Say climate change means he can't grow wheat. Too wet and too hot. Say he finds the only crop he can grow is Bananas. (Not sure how 1000's of acres of tropical fruit is going to work but) But this is only if the climate stabilizes. If it doesn't he can't grow anything with out huge risk.
Tooling up for bananas only to find that futile would be crazy.
Say for example the climate is stabilized by humans managing their GHG'S better.
How long do you think the supermarket shelves would be bare before stable supply was restored. Months, years, decades?

 

[iceaura]

Feel free to give me, say, a youtube link to something about climate shown in some mass medium which adequately describes also the positive effects of warming.

You presume there are significant positive effects likely from AGW in the near future - the people who know what they are talking about do not.
Since your "arguments" in defense of that presumption of yours reveal basic ignorance on your part (more rain is on average good for agriculture, that kind of thing), and include obvious errors and falsehoods (such as your claim that the researchers do not report positive findings) it makes sense to place more confidence in the people who know what they are talking about.

The problem is that the media don't just report the scientific results. They lie about them, intentionally.

The first problem with that kind of post, from you, is that you have no way of recognizing or identifying such lies.

 

[Quantum Quack]

All of them. Of course, given that I despise them in general, it is possible that there are some exceptions, which I have never seen. Feel free to give me, say, a youtube link to something about climate shown in some mass medium which adequately describes also the positive effects of warming.

The problem is that the media don't just report the scientific results. They lie about them, intentionally.

Iceaura repeats the old lie that I'm an AGW denier, despite the fact that I have never questioned that there is a warming or that humans are responsible for it. Together with the "you know nothing" and "you repeat Rep propaganda" nonsense. Boring.

Suggesting that the world's agriculture can change not only crop, but location without crippling cost is fanciful, don't you think?

 

[paddoboy]

All of them. Of course, given that I despise them in general, it is possible that there are some exceptions, which I have never seen. Feel free to give me, say, a youtube link to something about climate shown in some mass medium which adequately describes also the positive effects of warming.

I have often seen you quote media that you claim to be unbiased...unibiased meaning supporting whatever stance you chose to take.

The problem is that the media don't just report the scientific results. They lie about them, intentionally.

Iceaura repeats the old lie that I'm an AGW denier, despite the fact that I have never questioned that there is a warming or that humans are responsible for it. Together with the "you know nothing" and "you repeat Rep propaganda" nonsense. Boring.

I don't accept that on either grounds...media certainly sensationalize and sometimes gets things wrong...purposefully lying? We only have your rhetoric suggesting that.
And I can't see Iceaura lying also...again just your say so, obviously becuase it contradicts what you believe.

 

[Schmelzer]

You presume there are significant positive effects likely from AGW in the near future - the people who know what they are talking about do not.

As usual, what you write about my presumptions is wrong. I presume that some amount of warming gives positive effects in the long run. I have never questioned that if climate change is too fast that this can cause high adaption costs.

(such as your claim that the researchers do not report positive findings)

And another lie, already a repeated lie. My claim is that the mass media do not report them to the public.

Suggesting that the world's agriculture can change not only crop, but location without crippling cost is fanciful, don't you think?

Changing location (that means, starting agriculture in regions where there was no agriculture before, giving up existing agriculture in other regions) requires, of course, higher costs, if one thinks about the farmers changing their place. If they are crippling or not is another question. The possibility that Bures go to Russia may become a modern example of this. But I doubt this will be the way such a change happens. Most of such processes will be simple urbanization (farmers giving up and moving into the towns) which happens anyway, thus, no additional costs, simply the same process which is happening anyway going possibly faster. Starting new agriculture in new regions will be done by modern efficient firms if such investment looks efficient. So, this will be done by the market automatically.

I have often seen you quote media that you claim to be unbiased...unibiased meaning supporting whatever stance you chose to take.

No. I quote media not because I consider them to be unbiased. Most of the time it is more like quoting accidental confessions and admissions from media known to be lying.

I don't accept that on either grounds...media certainly sensationalize and sometimes gets things wrong...purposefully lying?

Yes, lying purposefully, in an organized, coordinated way. I have been challenged to prove this in the past, see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870

And I can't see Iceaura lying also...again just your say so, obviously becuase it contradicts what you believe.

Essentially everything iceaura writes about me are lies. I know this because these are claims about me, and because I have corrected them already several times, thus, they are not accidental misunderstandings but intentional lies.
What iceaura writes about everything else I do not name lies, they are simply claims not supported by any evidence. In the past, long ago, this was different. But iceaura has made some bad experiences with linking sources - I have read the sources and found there arguments supporting my position. So, it is not an accident that iceaura now refuses to link any scientific evidence in discussions with me.

 

[Schmelzer]

"Mass extinctions" are "a triviality." Google "Holocene Extinction." Sixth largest in history. But that's probably trivial to you as well.

No, it is simply irrelevant for a climate change discussion:

The Holocene extinction, ... or Anthropocene extinction, is a current event, and is one of the most significant extinction events in the history of the Earth. This ongoing extinction of species coincides with the present Holocene epoch (approx. 11,700 years), and is a result of human activity.

Emphasis mine.

I fail to see anything positive coming out of this climate evolution.

You think the optimal temperature is, by some accident, the actual one? I don't think so. The optimal temperature will be higher than the actual one.

There is not a farmer in the world that is not troubled by climate uncertainty.

Farmers are troubled by weather uncertainty. That's a different thing. The hysteria created by the media will trouble farmers too, as well as anybody else, but it is irrelevant.

Climate change just increases that uncertainty significantly.

No. It may increase the volatility of some weather events. But this volatility of the weather is something farmers become used to.

Say we have a wheat farm of large acerage. Say that farm has been growing wheat for a few generations and is tooled up for wheat production. Say climate change means he can't grow wheat. Too wet and too hot. Say he finds the only crop he can grow is Bananas. (Not sure how 1000's of acres of tropical fruit is going to work but) But this is only if the climate stabilizes. If it doesn't he can't grow anything with out huge risk. Tooling up for bananas only to find that futile would be crazy.

The climate is what is stable. By definition. What you imagine is a sort of catastrophic scenario where the weather is simply unpredictable. This is not what happens if the climate changes. There will be another climate, with other predictable patterns.

Say for example the climate is stabilized by humans managing their GHG'S better.
How long do you think the supermarket shelves would be bare before stable supply was restored. Months, years, decades?

The shelves will be full all the time. In the worst case, the things on the shelves may be more expensive. But even this is not very probable. Crop failures in one part of the world because of bad weather will be compensated from other parts of the world.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You think the optimal temperature is, by some accident, the actual one? I don't think so. The optimal temperature will be higher than the actual one.

No, I think that the vast majority of farms break even point relies on a small temperature/water range. When this is exceeded in either direction the farm becomes untenable. Btw i know jack shit about farming.

Farmers are troubled by weather uncertainty. That's a different thing. The hysteria created by the media will trouble farmers too, as well as anybody else, but it is irrelevant.

No weather certainty= no crop insurance = no crop

No. It may increase the volatility of some weather events. But this volatility of the weather is something farmers become used to.

Tell that to the farmers that go broke because there is 1+ meter of putrid flood water on their land or are importing water just for their families to drink. Millions of farmers seriously affected.

The climate is what is stable. By definition. What you imagine is a sort of catastrophic scenario where the weather is simply unpredictable. This is not what happens if the climate changes. There will be another climate, with other predictable patterns.

If it were stable there would be no hysterics, now would there?
Stable deteriorating conditions is also stable, where the trend to greater instability is steady, this is also stable yes?
Predictably worsening conditions is what is being experienced.

The shelves will be full all the time. In the worst case, the things on the shelves may be more expensive. But even this is not very probable. Crop failures in one part of the world because of bad weather will be compensated from other parts of the world.

Our staple reserves are already depleted and trending towards depletion. Supermarkets will keep the shelves full as part of marketing face, not because they have the commodities to sell.
It will not be long before wheat, rice, corn products, and by products become too costly to purchase for the majority of the worlds population.
But to you a 75% human climate change cull may be a positive out come, as long as you are not one of them?