What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They have value wherever some ignorant person is labeling ordinary research findings "alarmist".
    And as you just admitted, you can't tell the difference between that and the actual AGW research.
    You don't know what's in the AGW research reports.
    The interesting matter is why you - and the rest of the denialist pack - insist on labeling stuff "alarmist", when you have no way of knowing whether it is or not.
    You did that for me.
    Like this:
    According to the AGW research you know nothing about, the most likely expectation from the findings is that there are lots of places where the townsfolk will move or die under the effects of AGW. Those are the places under discussion - those are the places you tried to conceal by changing the subject to farmers moving to town.
    That is one of the findings of the AGW researchers. I think they are more likely to be correct than someone who thinks farmers will be switching from wheat to trees and back again as AGW takes hold. It is also common knowledge among those not completely ignorant of agriculture and its necessities.
    You don't know what you are denying. You don't know what the research findings are. What you actually do is simply deny whatever I post, labeling some of it "alarmist", without checking the research findings, You even declare that any research I post about "doesn't count".
    They are not an example of the thresholds discovered by the researchers. As I have reminded you three or four times now, those boundaries are not the thresholds reported in the published research I referred to you. You don't know that, obviously, despite your claims to have read the paper, and you have now defended your ignorance in that particular matter several times in this thread.
    Refugees do not necessarily wait for borders to "open". AGW is expected to be a "large crisis".
    There's nothing in that paper about your ignorance, or the Republican media feed you have devoted yourself to reposting here.
    That looks like a good place to break, and notice what the project of denying AGW can bring someone to think and say.
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No, that's easy to tell. If you would have research support for your claims, you would present it. Once you don't do it, you have none. Once you have no such support, your claims are alarmist. Even if you would accidentally correctly guess something (or copypaste such accidentally correct guesses from alarmist sites) this would not change their alarmist character.
    It is, in your case, easy to know: You post no scientific evidence for your claims. So your sources are so obviously of alarmist character that linking them would make that obvious.
    Present these findings, and explain why they would have to move out of the towns or die. Actually, with 3 mm per year, even the towns on the shore are not endangered by rising sea levels, and away from the sea the problem could be a collapse of the agriculture. This would bankrupt farmers, not those working in the towns.
    LOL. You really seem to think you can go away with this. Goebbel's way obviously works with American public like here - repeat the lies often enough and they will believe you.
    Wow, iceaura starts to refer to common knowledge. Looks like a preparation of plan B if a failure of the Goebbel's repetition strategy becomes too obvious.
    LOL. If I don't know something, I cannot deny it. Denial presupposes that one knows it.
    The burden of proof for your claims is on your side. It's that simple. I cannot deny something I don't know. Claims of a person which has lied many times are worth to be ignored.
    I know that you like to repeat trivialities as if your opponent has claimed something different. The thresholds in the paper were related to aridity, those in the mountains are related to temperature. But the method used to identify them is the same, space-for-time substitution, and what matters (namely that one can use that same method to make predictions about those "sudden unpredictable" events remains the same too.
    By alarmists. But if there would be really a large crisis, one would not ask those refugees to wait at the border. One would force them not to enter that foreign country by shooting those who don't understand those orders.
    Thanks for acknowledging that your
    was simply your fantasy, and there is nothing in the paper about this.
    Hm. Let's see:
    Sorry for not accepting American exceptionalism and believing that other nations can do similar things too. If this hurts your exceptional feelings, I couldn't care less. Or are you about "levee the Ganges river"? What's the problem? Don't forget they have a lot of time.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    If astronomers spot an asteroid headed for Earth and it's too late to deflect, calling them alarmists will have a similar effect on the asteroid's trajectory. Stop panicking people, Putin's got it all covered.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yes, there was. It's one of the major points of the paper you claimed to have read.
    By AGW researchers.
    You keep labeling the AGW researchers "alarmists". Then you deny doing that. Then you do it again. It's because you don't know what the AGW research findings are, or what the AGW researchers are deducing and reporting.
    That's how I know you still haven't read any of those articles I naively found and referred to you (you seemed mystified about how I knew that, earlier). Same way everyone knows you and Vox and the rest - when you claim to have seen no evidence for Republican/Russian or Trump/Putin collusion - have not read the Mueller Report or any of the investigative journalism on the topic.

    Meanwhile, unlike my posting of well known and easily verified basic information from the scientific literature, your assertions are largely goofball propaganda from the US fascist media feed, a body of propaganda intentionally designed for political attack against scientific research itself in the US. That is to say: Your bizarre and fringe assertions need evidence and argument - lots of it. Enough to contradict the entire body of AGW research published to date. You post none.
    Instead, you post parody level stuff like this:
    Followed by something about "bankruptcy", for some reason.
    Clearly you aren't even trying to post credibly any more. So why are you posting at all?
    No, I wouldn't. Remember?
    Apologies to the thread: My bad - I set him up for the stock rant, by accident.
    I forgot about the Republican media feed victims's inability to register irony or sarcasm. As walking exemplar's of Poe's Law in all matters political, their "analyses" need protection from the complexities of civil discourse, and by default it's the liberal humanist's responsibility to coddle them. With capability comes responsibility, or something like that. I failed, through carelessness. I forgot that enjoyment, complexity, exchange of whim and notion and idea, and so forth, is not possible in the presence of the victims of US fascist propaganda operations.

    Meanwhile: Similar things? There aren't any.
    Nobody on this planet (let alone a third world country without any of the necessary resources) has done what would be necessary to dike Bangladesh - or any of the rest of the SE Asian coastline currently in line for likely or expected disaster - against AGW searise and its consequences.
    Even if it were feasible - maybe those guys who wanted to terraform the planet using H-bombs could come up with something - there isn't enough time, according to the AGW researchers's calculated "most likely" expectations.
    Your insistence on making public display of your ignorance is not my fault, and not my responsibility to fix.
    I did go out of my way to help, as if you were posting in minimal good faith - suggesting you take a look at a topographic map, or even read up on the AGW research in the matter. I have even provided you with several well-chosen suggestions from the scientific literature for reading and study, including an excellent one in this thread, and have repeatedly warned you (with evidence and argument) against the US propaganda sources you have been relying on. In this thread I did everything except actually find topographic maps of the regions involved for you, post them in an interactive format, and walk you through them step by step as if you were a ten year old Russian schoolboy.

    In summary: The assumption that you (or any of the rest of the AGW deniers) are posting in good faith, has been blown out of the water.

    What climate change is not? Partly, anything an AGW denier says it is; partly, whatever someone who throws the term "alarmist" around says it is; partly, whatever anyone who has adopted the US Republican political attack on scientific research and researchers says it is.
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Schmeizer throws "alarmists" around carelessly and Iceaura throws "republican talking points" around carelessly. Two peas in a pod name calling each other. Kettle-black?
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Unsupported fantasy:
    No. You are an alarmist, and labeled alarmist by me. Invisible pink unicorns and your AGW researchers I have not named alarmists.
    Yes, you know that you have to follow the good old Goebbels rule, to repeat lies often enough. That's all you have to know.
    Because you cannot, because you don't have the evidence.
    The Dutch have done comparable things. Almost a century ago now. You have mentioned the Mississippi, with 16 800 m³/s . The Ganges has 11.000-17.000 m³/s (numbers from Wiki), thus, comparable size of the river too. Your implicit racism does not change the fact that such Third World countries can do things which have been done by Whites almost a century ago during a heavy economic crisis.
    Not the most likely, but the worst of those considered in the papers I have quoted give 3-4 m per century. This presupposes a heavy acceleration of the actual 3 mm per year (that means 30 cm per century). So "not enough time" is simply a lie. Moreover, building dikes helps locally, and is already done at many places, "since the 1950s when the first major flood embankments were constructed", to quote the article you linked.
    Funny fantasy. It is me who have posted the topographic map how the world would look like in the worst case scenario (with Greenland as well as Antarctic glaciers melting), with link to the place where everybody can use this. I post regularly quotes from literature, with reference to the sources in the established form.

    You never give quotes from literature in that usual form. You never present any maps or other useful material. You have mentioned, in a somewhat nonstandard way, one scientific paper and linked another one. You have not shown that the content of these papers supports your claims. It is not even clear if you have read those papers yourself - it remains plausible that you have only read a distorted alarmist summary referring to them. I have, instead, quoted them. These are essential differences even your ten year old Russian schoolboy would be able to identify (but I'm not sure about an American schoolboy).

    My actual theory about you is that you get paid for what you doing, but have enough scientific background to feel uncomfortable with this. So, you follow a strategy that those who pay you remain satisfied, but don't care if for those who care about the content it becomes quite obvious that you are the loser in the debate.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Just cause it turned up the other day, here's an article on the threat facing Bangladesh in particular that Judith Curry posted on her website - Curry being a favorite of the AGW denialist crowd, I'm assuming even the Schmelzers of this world will find it acceptable reading:
    Note that, in common with the entire body of industry-backed AGW research critics, Curry uses points of uncertainty only as an opportunity to minimize the expected consequences of AGW - not to enlarge their range on the high side as well.

    That involves an assumption diligently and thoroughly promulgated by US corporate rightwing marketing professionals, faithfully repeated by essentially all AGW denialists in every media arena; and it's a political assumption: that scientific research into AGW has been corrupted by leftwing or liberal ideology and influence, politics, to the point that its reports, findings, evidence, even its raw data, have been biased toward assertions of greater threat rather than lesser, more serious harm rather than less, more bad consequences and fewer good ones.

    That assumption of fact - that the consensus or mainstream science is reporting an overestimation of AGW's rate, size, effects, bad consequences, etc (for any reason) - conflicts with the measured trends and comparisons between the consensus older predictions and incoming data. AGW is hitting harder and faster, in more bad ways and fewer good ways, than was authoritatively predicted as likely fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, even ten years ago. The high side extremists among the AGW researchers have for fifty years been proving more accurate, in general, than the scientific consensus and official advisors - let alone the denialists, who have been left in the dust by every new round of data compilation and are now spinning off into raw fantasy and conspiracy theories.

    The US Republican administration and Congress has responded to the incoming data and evidence and findings by cutting funding and other support from research and researchers who have anything to do with AGW, if possible, and if not possible to impose political oversight on its communications with the media in various ways - including dismissal or reassignment of scientists who disagree with their political overseer's actions, classification or destruction of research findings and analyses that conflict with the Republican political agenda, and so forth. The standard censorship techniques of unsteady or insecure rightwing authoritarian regimes, who still have to negotiate and compromise sometimes, in other words - common forerunners of the more active and more brutal methods employable (and therefore employed) by a successfully established fascist government.

    This is political. If we in the US want to describe what AGW ("climate change") is or is not, if we want to plan for it knowledgeably and sensibly, we have to protect the research from the new US government. To do that, we probably have to protect all research that might directly benefit or defend or help the average US citizen - all such research has a hot-button political connection.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Schmelzer is far from careless.

    I'm not careless either, as you have reason to know. That's why you post as you do.
    My use of such terms is spot on accurate, meaningful, and relevant every time;

    as you will discover whenever you attempt a discussion on that topic, rather than your current standard, thread irrelevant, one line personal attack.

    Does it ever occur to you that you could in time lose the ability to discuss matters, to reason with the reasonable altogether, from disuse? It's been months now.
    - - - -
    That wasn't a topographical map, it wasn't relevant to its thread, and you screwed up its implications something royal - apparently in deciding to join the other denialists in ignoring rate and other key AGW features, you also adopted the Republican habit of thinking intuitively "small" numbers and fractions are therefore trivial.

    The map showed what would be AGW disaster if the map were relevant - if it showed what could happen at the rate AGW is kicking in. Hundreds of millions of refugees, world wide economic and political breakdown, all the bad stuff in the closet (except possibly the methane bomb) would be a physical reality,
    Oddly, you seemed to think it supported your bs, apparently not because you understood it was an irrelevance used for deflection, but because the little dark band of flooded continent didn't look significant to you.
    You simply don't know any better.
    Not equivalent ones.
    They have done amazing things, but diking Bangladesh against AGW's predicted effects would take another level of terraforming altogether - as a glance at a topographic map (look it up in a dictionary) will show you, if you haven't the time to read the Curry link I posted above.
    And nobody has the time anyway.
    The claim that the AGW researchers have found that there is not enough time is perfectly accurate - not only not a lie, but a fact. You can read the argument in the article I suggested for you, above - the one you claim to have read.
    Sooner or later these guys always project (as a personal slander of someone else, even - having no sense of irony makes some things easier) - usually to pre-empt. Be interesting if this guy starts posting corporate whitewash here, or shoehorning Russian agitprop into this distant thread.
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    No one is "spot on accurate, meaningful, and relevant every time" who resorts to the use of "Republican talking points". It's a crutch and is as lazy as someone using "alarmist".

    But back to the show, Don Quixote. (and your response will be "They can't help it")
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I am. It's not difficult.
    In the reality based world words have meanings, and one can use them for their meanings consistently and with only very infrequent error. There are such things as Republican talking points, they are easy for a US native to spot and notice, and once noticed they are easy to recognize - distinguished from aspects of a common reality, for example, by their falsity or bs nature, specific composition, origin, and medium of delivery.
    This you will discover if you ever attempt an honest discussion of that or any other matter, rather than posting yet another airing of some idiotic stereotype you never shucked from adolescence, or another attempt to guess my job, education, eye color, sleeping arrangements, income, age, etc etc etc etc.
    And if you think you can - try. I'll credit a success, you know - we lefty libertarians have this thing called "intellectual integrity".
    Every junkie thinks they can quit any time they want to - my bet's on the rut you've been in for months.
    For example, my guess is that you are unable to go "back to the show" on this thread yourself - post something factual and of thread relevance. Not even with the thread title and 27 pages of occasionally relevant posting right in front of you.

    And on this forum that's the common case with the US based or informed AGW "skeptics" or "critics", to borrow the bs. They can't actually deal with, post on, discuss, the physical topic of a CO2 boost causing AGW. They can't read the reports, reason about the circumstances, analyze the available information, address the issues, none of it. They can't say what it is, what it isn't, what is known about it, or what isn't.

    That's interesting - at least, more interesting than anything they have to say about AGW. But it's not something one can discuss with its perps.
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Different from you, I do not value sources based on the question if I like the results or not. The relevant question is if they follow scientific methodology. The link is a blog, thus, not really a scientific source, but so what, this is what one has to expect from iceaura - never give the scientific source itself. In this case, the reference would be

    Pethick, J., Orford, J.D. (2013). Rapid rise in effective sea-level in southwest Bangladesh: Its causes and contemporary rates. Global and Planetary Change 111, 237-245

    So I will use this source, instead of that irrelevant blogger.
    The article itself is not uninteresting because it describes also reasons for local sea level rise which are not related to global warming at all. In particular, the change of the geometry caused by various embankment building also changes the tidal range. It is one thing if what is pressed into the river from the sea by the tide meets a wide unprotected area or an embankment. So, if you build embankment, you have to expect that (because of the changed geometry) the tidal range increases.
    Emphasis mine. Fine. With these numbers, another question appears. Is it appropriate to use well-known and predictable side effects of useful human activity (constriction of the river by embankments), and add these effects to the sea level rise? And then forget about the origin? The problem is that what is caused by that human construction will be, plausibly, a one-time effect: The tidal range has increased and will remain higher, but without further embankment building there will be also no further tidal range rise, not? That means, you cannot simply add this "rise" to the expected rise for all the future years.

    Whatever, let's ignore this question and look at the numbers: "by the year 2100 could range between 1.74 m and 3.24 m. This increases to between 2.01 m and 3.51 m at Khulna, in the densely populated area of the Sundarban Impact Zone." So, indeed, no problem for my argumentation, given that I have used 3-4 m per century.

    Except that I do not question the results made by the researchers. Instead, I look at them, then I quote them to use these results in my argumentation. Left-wing, right-wing, whatever-wing, if it is an appropriate scientific article, I don't care about this. But for iceaura I'm nonetheless an AGW denialist. This is simply an axiom, to be repeated as often as suggested by Goebbels.
    Ok, this open support for the extremist positions clarifies that my classification of iceaura as an alarmist is correct.

    Of course, the data presented in iceaura's link, if one looks at them in the scientific paper itself, suggest nothing of this type, but attribute 83% of the observed (indeed quite large) water level rise to a side effect of human activity unrelated to global warming.

    Indeed, it was a very degenerated case of a topographical map. A usual topographical map presents many different contour lines, corresponding to different elevations, here there was only a single contour line, which marked the contour of the waterside after a particular sea level rise. So, all the irrelevant contour lines have been removed, only the contour line of interest was presented.
    It showed the worst imaginable final result. All of Antarctica and Greenland ice melted. So, a safe upper bound for the horrors.
    LOL. Of course, this worst case final result is significant. That's why I have considered what could be done to prevent most of the harm. But there is time to adapt, a few thousands years. With that time scale, it is far from catastrophic.
    The blog link is, indeed, irrelevant, but in the paper it referred to there were interesting facts about what Bangladesh was able to do in the last century: "Between 1961 and 1971 a total of 10,000 $km^2$ were reclaimed, with 92 polders created within 4022 km of embankment (Islam, 2006)." So far about how impossible it is for Bangladesh to manage embankment over thousands of km. And the source they referred to (Islam, M.R., 2006. Managing Diverse Land Uses in Coastal Bangladesh: Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal Zones. 237–248.) gives also a picture of the polders finished up to 1980:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And especially for those who may think that this is something very different from the Dutch polders, the explanation of the meaning:
    So, if the sea level rises 3-4 m during the next century, those poor Bengali people have to increase the size of these dikes and embankments (which they have build in 20 years of the last century) by 3-4 m during the whole next century. I would naively expect that this does not need more time than the same 20 years. So they will also have 60 more years up to 2100 to build similar embankments upstream to protect the areas upstream.
    Once you prefer not to quote, there is only a probability of 0.1% that there is indeed something written there which supports your claim. Whenever you refer to something scientific, even if only implicitly via some blog, and the scientific source can be identified and accessed, one will certainly find nice things there which are in conflict with your claims.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That won't work, according to the research.
    You haven't read any AGW research. That's why you don't know what its findings are. That's one reason you can't tell when you are denying its findings and analyses.
    Maybe 75 years at most, more likely twenty or thirty, according to the AGW researchers (and that's if we start now - delays shorten the window for adaptation); you can find such information in the article I referred to you, the one you claimed to have read.
    It was not a topographic map.
    No, it did not. Nowhere near.
    You have no idea what the worst expected final result is, let alone the worst imaginable.
    That's one way you can tell it's far from the worst case. Another way would be to notice that it features an irrelevant time scale that would allow for incremental adaptation if it existed. As you would know from the information provided to you if you had ;earned from it, AGW is expected to continue setting in much faster than that, and in consequence be much more damaging.
    They would be doing fine if AGW were not happening. As it is they need to find another technology and some way to pay for it just to have a chance of staving off disaster for another thirty years or so. Beyond that - as you surely must have read in the Curry article I handed you - nobody who has looked into the matter has found any way for them to handle what the AGW research says is likely incoming. (Notice that even Curry is reduced to rhetorical attempts to separate the direct from the indirect consequences of AGW, and pretend that only the direct ones count as AGW effects.)

    btw: That was what the letter writers who thought the incoming bad effects were being overestimated wrote, in the link I posted for you above. That's the latest example of you quoting from stuff you haven't read, and drawing conclusions that contradict it.

    Or in summary:
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It starts, as usual, with the classical repetitions of fantasies about "research" which is never quoted or referenced in an appropriate way:
    No, only according your claim, which is worthless given your reputation.
    Nonsense. I can deny research only if I know it is research. All what I do is to ignore your claims, naming them alarmist claims. That's, BTW, not even a rejection of them - I would have to claim explicitly that they are wrong to deny them. I ignore them as worthless, iceaura is as reasonable as astrology as a source of knowledge.
    Once you are unable to find a quote, no reason for me to reread it.
    In this particular case, the worst imaginable result is well-known and simple, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ 216 feet or 66 m. Once all the ice is melted, further warming will add not much, only the thermal expansion of the ocean water will give a little bit more.
    I look at the real research and take the information from published papers like

    Winkelmann, R., Levermann, A., Ridgwell, A., Caldeira, K. (2015). Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Sci Adv. 1(8): e1500589

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You would have looked better at the papers behind that, the ones I have quoted. Or at least you should have tried to understand the meaning of the quotes I have given above. First, "deltaic subsidence, including sediment compaction" does not refer to indirect consequences of AGW, it has nothing to do with AGW. And then, the main effect, 83%, is the tidal range increase, and here we read "tidal range will be amplified as a result of these anthropogenic activities". Also not an "indirect consequence of AGW", but, instead, a direct consequence of all the embankment build there.
    The word "that" these letter writers have indeed used many times. So what? What they have written has nothing to do with your alarmist nonsense.
    So, this is an attack against all those alarmists focussed only on AGW, who care at most about "direct and indirect consequences of AGW" and nothing else. But ignore the local effects (sedimentation and so on) and the side effects of human activities (like building embankments) on the tidal range.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I referred you to the one you quoted, remember?
    Unlike you, apparently, I read it - the whole thing. That's how I know that the authors generally agree with the rest of the AGW research scientists about the incoming consequences for Bangladesh of AGW searise and other effects - as they put it, the expected searise along that long coastline combined with the flood/drought rollercoaster along its several large rivers and increasing volatility in the monsoon would overwhelm the country. The most likely ("expected") refugee population is in the millions - but that's just Bangladesh, already poor, already a famous scene of humanitarian disaster. When this happens in richer, less disaster adapted countries it will make a bigger splash, maybe.
    You are simply wrong about that - posting in ignorance, as always; refusing to factcheck anything you agree with, as always.

    Deltaic subsidence - especially sediment compaction - is a long predicted as well as currently measured indirect consequence of AGW in many places. I'll leave it to you to trace the several cause/effect sequences that contribute.
    As I pointed out, above: Curry's attempt to argue that only direct consequences of AGW "count" is a propaganda trick currently common to the AGW denialist campaign.
    It is an attempt to exclude the predicted and almost inevitable indirect consequences of AGW (such as the effects of poorly governed and reactionary flood control measures ) from the list of consequences. It is propaganda.

    You get played because you don't have a basis in physical reality for evaluating such stuff - you simply took the word of Curry et al that these "local effects" were not AGW related.

    Remember - or in your case discover - that most of the new and increasing problems Bangladesh is having with floods, torrential rains, sediment compaction, and other "local effects", were predicted by AGW researchers decades ago as reasons for concern about Bangladesh in particular - and underestimated then. (The glaciers melted faster than anticipated, the torrential rains came sooner, the droughts came sooner, the effects on monsoon timing were and still are uncertain - AGW is hitting faster and in more ways than the compromising and carefully conservative research summaries, the "alarmists" of your propaganda-addled fantasies, predicted in public.)
    You don't. Your posts conflict with them - often flatly denying the information they contain.
    Again you confess an inability to learn from anyone other than me, and anything other than my posting. My superpowers are truly amazing.
    Silly boy. Almost all your denial of AGW research is in complete ignorance - even of its existence, let alone content. You deny the findings of research you know nothing about all the time - routinely, every thread involving physical science, almost every post in those threads. That's the standard denialist status - almost all of them are quite ignorant (the rest are dishonest, dealing in deception and lies and -most damaging of all - bs, normally for money in the West, under threat in the East; but the threat motive is spreading West).
    It's also standard among the far-gone wingnut denialists - those more or less permanently infused with decades of US corporate koolaid - to defend their ignorance, to justify overlooking basic physical facts in formulating their analyses, on political grounds.
    That is beyond your capabilities. You can't avoid denying AGW research findings, labeling them "alarmist" and so forth, because you can't identify them - in my posts or anywhere else.

    You can't tell the difference between "my claims" and my reposting of AGW research findings because you don't know what the AGW research findings are, and (as your suckering for the propaganda line in Curry's essay demonstrates) you have no basic physical knowledge in this arena. (Another example: If you had known anything about the physical effects of leveeing the Mississippi River through New Orleans you would never have referred to it as something Bangladesh could or should do to the Ganges River in hopes of ameliorating the incoming consequences of AGW searise).

    What "climate change" (AGW, always, in these threads) is not: Anything the US-corporate-rightwing-authoritarian-Republican media feed says it is, found here in the posts of its resident tools.
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. You referred me to a blog quoting the abstract and some text of it. We can conclude here that this is all that you have read, the blog entry.

    The usual alarmist fantasies follow about what is written in the article, as usual not supported by any quote from the article or even only the blog.

    Followed by another "you are wrong" claim, followed at least by a description what would be the correct position:
    But, as usual, with no references supporting that hypothesis. I would guess, based on the unfinish "that contribute", that behind this is "what contributes to searise". Of course, deltaic subsidence contributes to the rise of the sea level at those points where it happens. But this does not make it an "indirect consequence" of AGW.
    Except that I have not cared about that Curry at all. Instead, I have looked at the paper which has been quoted in this blog. And looked at what are these other contributions, and in particular what causes these other contributions. And find that they are not at all "indirect consequences", but, instead, independent effects. Would there be more or less deltaic subsidence if there would be, instead, a cooling? No evidence presented, thus, we have to start with the null hypothesis.
    ROTFL. The "reactionary" flood control measures (which probably have to be replaced by liberal and democratic flood control measures) made my day. Ok, let's assume that the "reactionary" means here something of type "done in reaction to AGW searise" or so. Unfortunately, all those measures have been made in times nobody has cared about AGW so even this attempt to sell it as indirectly caused by AGW fails.
    That joke was a little bit funny the first time. The 34 repetition is as boring as the usual repetitions of your lies.
    Scientific research which is not openly presented does not count as scientific research. Your claims that there is some scientific research backing your fantasies is as irrelevant as the US claims that their intelligence has proofs for their silly fantasies.
    Except that you have made fun of yourself by naming completely independent effect "indirect consequences" of AGW. With even the funny "reactionary" flood control measures being "indirect consequences" of AGW too.
    Nonsense. I'm aware of the side effects, in particular, that they even increase the tidal range - the effect which already appeared in Bangladesh too. But I can compare what this gives with the unwanted side effects. If the dikes are high enough, they protect the land behind them, despite all the side effects. That's quite simple.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Given your confinement to a propaganda world, especially with your inadequate command of English, that's forgivable. You might want to try to learn about physical reality, though, and the meanings of the words you use - it would save you some public embarrassment.
    It's not a joke - unless it's your joke, to keep demanding that other people educate you against your will. That is theatre of the absurd stuff, but then so is much of the rest of your posting here.
    Like this beauty:
    All the research I report here has been openly presented in the published literature. That's where I find it.

    That's not the problem. This is:
    Your figure of 3mm/year searise likely came originally from the scientific literature. But it is a global average, officially reported, well within the range of "likely" according to the consistently lowballing official scientific consensus and not applicable to local situations; neither is it useful by itself for estimating the threat of AGW searise, globally or locally. So none of the arguments you make from it are any good - the one where you posted that a given average searise along the coast could be met by an equal raising of the embankment and dike heights was flat out stupid.

    The common high sea level events along the Bangladesh coast are likely to increase much more than the average sea level does, and by sudden surges impossible to predict very far in advance: that's partly where the predictions of disasters from searise come from, in the AGW research findings. (The other parts come from the expected torrential rainfalls, the inability of Bangladesh to pay for better infrastructure than berms made of dirt, the loss of glacial meltwater as the glaciers shrink, severe droughts creating vulnerabilities, and so forth).

    Meaning derives from context, and you don't have any. So even when you luck unto an accurate number or scientific fact, you don't know what it means.
    They aren't independent, according to AGW research.
    You keep denying the findings of AGW research.
    In Bangladesh, if the AGW research predictions are reasonably accurate, they won't work. The letter you quoted from addresses that specific matter, and comes to that conclusion (as does the rest of the body of AGW researchers).
    Stuff like this illustrates how living in a world of propaganda destroys one's ability to discuss scientific issues.
    It may sound strange to someone who lives in a world of propaganda, but AGW is a physical event; it causes stuff (including human behaviors) regardless of whether anyone cares about it - or even knows about it.

    I'll try again: Much extra flooding in Bangladesh over the past few decades has been a direct consequence of AGW (glacial melt, torrential rains, storm surge heights, erratic monsoon, sea level rise, etc) Responses to this flooding - which has been severe, creating refugees etc - are therefore (by definition) indirect consequences of AGW. So are the consequences of those responses, such as delta subsidence.

    That is, btw, very far from a complete list even restricted to Bangladesh (example: AGW in Bangladesh is expected to continue increasing the already damaging reliance on arsenic poisoned aquifers).

    At any rate, we have a specific and local example of the aforementioned rule of thumb:

    "Climate change" (AGW) is not whatever the US rightwing-corporate-authoritarian media feed says it is.
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    LOL. I demand that you present support for your fantasy claims, else I ignore them as irrelevant babble.
    So you at least recognize the 3 mm per year as the average. Fine. That local data may differ is clear, there are regions where the sea level even decreases. The actual average, as well as that over the last century, is certainly useful for estimating the threat of searise in the future. Of course, not for alarmists, they would like to be able to claim arbitrary high numbers without any relation to reality. But for laymen it already gives an order of magnitude. One can accept it if the speed increases by a factor of ten, which is what gives the 3 m per century.
    And, of course, a sealevel rise can be met by an equal raising of the embankment. There may be some differences, one I have mentioned and discussed - an increase of the tidal range. This is, btw, mainly a problem if new embankments and dikes are build, because this changes the geometry. But if they simply become larger, the geometry already does not change much. Moreover, it is a one-time effect. Once the embankments are build, the tidal range adapts to the new geometry, that's all. If there are other local effects, like sedimentation, this leads to other local data, thus, other values of what one has to add to the heights.
    If one adds the predicted torrential rainfalls and so on, no problem, adding one time 1-2 m more will meet such problems too. It does not change the final result that those things can be met with affordable costs.
    s/AGW research/iceaura's fantasies/
    The papers considered show a different picture, namely that almost all of the actual problems are local human-made. If one looks at the data, one finds that "Bangladesh's poverty rate fell from 82% in 1972, to 18.5% in 2010, 13.8% in 2016, 8.3% in 2018, and below 4% in 2020 as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms". So, Bangladesh is quite successful, despite a quite large population growth. The trick to name all victims of floods victims of climate change is cheap.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They were responses to AGW, according to the research you have not read.
    Many of the disasters AGW is predicted to cause will be mediated by shortsighted human responses (war, famine, pestilence, floods, etc) - that is among the predictions of the AGW research you have not read.
    That is false. As the AGW research has found and reported, adding a couple of meters to the dikes in Bangladesh won't help.
    Why not read up on the research, before posting such ignorant falsehoods in public?
    You are always welcome to ignore anything I post. Since you refuse to inform yourself, that is probably your best option - notice that most of your fellow denialists here have adopted it already.
    No, it can't.
    I recognize it as repeated evidence of your inability to handle the concept of a global climate "average" - of temperature, rainfall, aridity, searise, windspeed, erosion, anything.

    Interestingly enough, you share that specific mental incapability with the other denialists on this forum and in the general public discussion - along with a common vocabulary and approach to analysis. Apparently you are all drawing from the same source (US political propaganda, from the corporate authoritarian right), and you are committed to that source.
    Once again you deny the published findings of the research in the field. A rule of thumb: Every declarative statement about any aspect of AGW made by someone who describes the IPCC reports as "alarmist" is false.

    Thread topic result:
    What climate change is not: anything the AGW denialists say it is.
  22. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    No. They were side effects of what has been done in the 70's of the last century, at a time nobody has known anything about AGW.
    In other words, alarmists will name everything caused by AGW, even if the real causes (side effects of human behavior, war, pestilence etc) have quite obviously nothing at all to do with AGW.
    Why not supporting nonsensical accusations in a civilized, scientific way, with explicit quotes from referenced peer-reviewed sources?
    I have no "fellow denialists", I inform myself if you post here reasonable information from reasonable sources, the last time when you have posted some dubious blog I have downloaded and read the paper referenced in this blog and some paper referenced by that paper, and quoted and referenced them here in an adequate way. What I ignore are empty claims.
    I recognize that the concept of average is very dangerous for alarmists. Of course, given that the scientific predictions from climate science predict averages. And people can look at these averages, compare them with the climate at their own location, the climate at some other locations, and so on. And people able to look at scientific data and make their own conclusions are not the sheeple who believe every alarmist horror, if it is claimed to be a "prediction of AGW research" (without any reference to this research).

    But people know how to use averages. If they want to visit some other country, they inform themselves about the climate there by looking at various averages they can find for many places already with Wikipedia.
    The sources I use you can find at https://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/. I reference them. It was you who referenced here some dubious blog instead of the paper considered in that blog entry.
    Recognize that this rule of thumb is unusable for the readers of your blabla, once you don't quote any IPCC reports.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Now I am the world's only source of information about IPCC reports. My importance grows by leaps and bounds.
    I have already traced your source as visible in your vocabulary and assumptions on your website, here, and I would guess everywhere else you spread Republican propaganda. It is the US rightwing corporate media feed.
    You don't.
    AGW denialists in general don't - which is very odd, once noticed. It's a significant factor in US politics - the public discussion of every issue from Covid to tax policy is driven by this inculcated incapability.
    It's dangerous for anyone who doesn't understand it - someone who, for example, uses the 66% probability max average predicted global searise from AGW ( 3mm@year) as the maximum seawater levels predicted for the Bangladesh dike and embankment system to have to handle in the next few decades. Why would anyone do that? Good question - and one you could even answer, if you ever noticed the problem.
    You can find out who they are by simple keyword searches in the US media, the posters here who assign "likes" and so forth to your posts, and similar. There are many thousands of them, and they have conned and fooled and victimized many tens of millions of people.
    Researchers have had significant knowledge of AGW and its effects since the 1950s and before, and the topic was being publicly discussed in laymen's terms long before the 1970s. That is easily noticed, and would be by anyone familiar with the topic at all - even in its simplistic political manifestations.
    In the 1960s, for example, college professors were lecturing ordinary undergraduates on AGW using evidence already twenty years old and more - including a lot of stuff you still don't know. And one finds this mentioned on thousands of familiar internet sites on all kinds of topics - such as Wiki's bio of Al Gore:
    You don't know this stuff, because you don't know anything about AGW research.

    That's also, as noted above and long ago in dealing with you and your fellow denialists, a comical and ridiculous argument in the first place - idiotic, and obviously idiotic even if one knows nothing of AGW.
    To repeat from above and so often before: the existence of physical reality does not depend on what you and willfully ignorant people like you happen to know about. AGW did not begin when you, or anyone else, found out about it. It is happening now even though you still haven't found out about it (and neither have most of the people in Bangladesh). Reality doesn't care about your politics, who you think is "alarmist", and so forth.

    The people of Bangladesh have been dealing with the effects of AGW from the very earliest onset of such effects - whether they knew it or not. They will be dealing with it in the future even if they all become Schmelzer style dumbfucks, people who think by not learning about something they have prevented it from existing. And the most likely scope of its effects on them is something you can find laid out in research papers and reality based (that's "leftist" and "alarmist", to the Republican propaganda victim) sources. It's pretty grim.

    What climate change is not: anything Schmelzer and other purveyors of Republican Party propaganda say it is.

Share This Page