Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.
Sure it is.
Why would you think it isn't?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It is quite well understood. Actual warming is closely matching IPCC models, indicating that they can now predict the results of our anthropogenic emissions.
It was apolitical until around 1997 when Clinton and Gore started championing research into it. Up until then it was bipartisan. But since Gore was pushing for it, republicans decided they had to be against it, on the theory that "anything democrats do must be bad and we must oppose it." From that point on republicans made it into a political football.
It is objectively examined. I personally know several scientists researching it, and they are about as objective as scientists get.
It is viewed in context, as most science is.
You have all the information you need to know that you haven't followed the research, read the studies, or comprehended any of the arguments. You get that information from your own experience of your own life.
That has nothing to do with my posts here (outside of the one time I provided you with a published research report - a primary source - but you apparently didn't read it, so it changed nothing.)
Once again you describe how your thinking goes haywire and leads to your posting Republican Party memes and propaganda feeds, often word for word, on a science forum. Do you expect sympathy?
You will never know how idiotic that "common sense" of yours is, because you will never know 1) how and why and when and where the researchers expect increased loss of agricultural land due to salinization under AGW, or 2) what the researchers expect the "increased precipitation" of AGW to be (more volatile in timing and distribution, almost entirely torrential in quantity, significantly harmful to agriculture on average).
Once again you explain your posting of Republican Party memes, falsehood and error and baseless slander just as we find on Fox News and promoted by Republican "think tanks" etc, - and it's the same explanation you have posted before:
it's because nobody here has educated you, or provided you with facts and stuff like that. In your world, overcoming your opposition to learning anything and providing you with the basic information you need to make sense when posting on scientific matters is somebody else's job.
That's your posted reason for your ignorance. That's not something I made up as a ridiculous exaggeration or mockery - it's your self-described situation.
But to be fair: your posting is a quite good, very reliable representation of the Republican Party's media feed on scientific topics. You keep up with the changes, the fads and such, in real time. I have every confidence, for example, that there are pundits shilling for the Republican Party right now on cable and radio and wingnut framed major media who are claiming that the "increased precipitation" as predicted by AGW researchers will be good for agriculture on average, that AGW is bringing us closer to some kind of global optimal temperature for human beings, that when they stipulate some of the warming could be from human causes they are not denying AGW or the findings of its researchers, etc.
That - what your sources say it is - is what AGW ("climate change") is not.
I have, of course, knowledge about the research I have seen, the studies I have read, and I comprehend the arguments proposed. For example, your "argument" is to repeat many many primitive lies many many times.
From alarmist who lie about me all the time? Of course, not. I expect hate, given that they are unable to present any arguments against what I propose, and all they can do is to repeat lies nobody seriously believes.
Don't worry, those few people tricked by the alarmists believing that nonsense but with some remains of scientific thinking will give me what is necessary to correct possible errors. You will not, of course, because you have simply nothing to present, this became finally clear during this discussing, where it became quite obvious that it was you who has not read the paper.
It becomes even more and more obvious that you don't even know that horrible Rep Party's media feed, you use it simply as a name for something evil. But I'm too lazy to check this.
Just one of many, many studies showing that climate change is causing freshwater supplies to become saltier, not less salty. Moreover, as the planet heats up and lakes evaporate, it forces people to use salinated groundwater instead. But hey, maybe if we make sure Kremlin TV keeps saying positive things about climate change, it'll become reality.
Thanks. Let's see. Most of the salination problems mentioned in the article coming from climate change itself are related to the rise of the sea level, thus, a local problem of the river deltas. They can be handled by building dikes, see here. That means, this is the usual alarmist trick of assuming humanity is doing nothing, not even the elementary things like increasing dikes. Then, the article mentions salination problems which are simply human-made. Like shrimp farms, which like saltwater, so that the nearby groundwater becomes salty and damages other agriculture. Or more use of water for agriculture upstream, which leaves less water for the river deltas.
Or, in Australia:
I have cared about this a little bit more, given that the description given in your paper suggested that indeed there could be some non-trivial mechanism which increases salination problems:
The main reason for the increase of the groundwater level is the irrigation, which is necessary given the aridity of the region, and that the irrigation water also contains salt is the main cause of salination. But, indeed, the removal of the plants with deep roots, which were able to access and use the deep groundwater, also leads to some increase in the groundwater level. And if the ground above the former groundwater level is salty, the groundwater can become more salty too.
While this effect is completely human-made, and even the papers don't claim otherwise, at least in principle one could imagine such an effect: Simply the increase in precipitation in a quite arid region increases the groundwater level slowly. Then, that groundwater washes out salt, thus, becomes quite salty. Somewhere there may be vegetation which does not have access to groundwater, but survives because of the precipitation or irrigation. Now the groundwater level rises, bringing salty water from underground, with fatal consequences for these particular plants.
But, while one cannot exclude such effects completely on theoretical grounds, they matter only under very special circumstances. Namely, the precipitation is not enough so that the water does not flow away, taking away the solved salt too (not even in the rainy season). So, the problem is restricted to regions so arid that no water flows away, regions where rivers, if they exist at all, end in salt lakes. These regions are, therefore, not very good for agriculture anyway.
And, as usual, it has given me some additional advantage of more precipitation: It decreases the salination of the river water too:
Whatever, thanks for the reference. It is a much more valuable contribution than dozens of postings by iceaura.
Schmelzer, you’ve jumped the shark.
I’m pretty sure you did that a couple (of) decades ago.
FFS! The ice caps are melting at ALARMING rates, no problems, we’ll build dykes!!!!
The average global temperatures are rising at ALARMING rates! Goody, I love a nice warm climate!
Rainforests are being strafed for burger meat and fucking palm oil to cook chips.
I love burgers and chips!
Schmelzer. You are a right royal idiot.
Follow Trump’s lead. See who can prove themselves to be the biggest fucken idiot in a world of really, really fucked up idiots.
You’re winning. Trump has nothing by comparison.
btw, dykes ain’t gonna work.
Read the arguments. instead of crying We have thousands of years even in the most alarming scenario, and the effect is below 70 m, which leaves quite a lot land to live even without any new dikes:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have never made any comments about burgers and chips. As usual, my opponents cannot do without defamation.
Because you say so? I prefer the facts on the ground. They already work nicely in the Netherlands.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It reminds me of a report a few years back from Russia Today in which a journalist went to visit Pyongyang, NK. To paraphrase, the reporter was like "This country's so f---ed up that hardly anyone can afford a car and the roads are practically empty. But hey, this is wonderful news because it means you get to walk around and enjoy more dysfunctional commie crap!"
Once again we are confronted, by you, with clear evidence and sound argument provided by you, conclusion that you have seen little or no research, read few or no studies, and comprehend none of the arguments involved, in AGW scientific efforts.
That is: You lack the basic knowledge available to all who have seen actual research, read studies, comprehended arguments, etc, in that field. They know, for example, that the thresholds discovered by the researchers in the article I handed you have little or nothing to do with those ecological zone boundaries you have seen in mountains, that the volatility predicted via AGW has nothing to with regular monsoons, and so forth. You don't.
(byw: the intro and foreshadowing in the latest Science magazine issue provides informatio on the topic of "volatility", as does related online commentary concerning Atlantic magazine's latest issue and forthcoming treatments by both these magazines in June. There's a large region in Australia that illustrates the topic - it went from years of record drought and heat and wildfire to massive flooding in a matter of weeks. If you want to entertain the Australians here, you might try showing us how to handle that by building dikes.
The extra precipitation from AGW has been found damaging, not beneficial, to agriculture; the salinization of agricultural land under AGW has little to do with the salinity dilution or suppression of river water via torrential rain and flooding, and so forth.
That is knowledge routinely available for years now, in the research studies and reports and arguments.
They cannot be handled by building dikes in most places (the Netherlands being a rare circumstance which may not be able to keep up anyway), and in the few that might benefit no one has the money or - if the latest findings on glacial flow and melt does reflect the trend that analysis found long ago, as seems likely - the time.
You don't know the facts on the ground.
That's your biggest and most visible area of ignorance, even more significant than your large gaps in even low level technical concepts such as "average" and "volatility" - you deal entirely in setups of competing propaganda feed, in matters of scientific research.
Such as rising sea level in low areas - wet rice farming on river deltas and flood plains, say - the major food supply of about a fifth of the population of the planet.
Up until recently, that was not a common problem but a very special circumstance (land subsidence around the mouth of the Mississippi, for one).
The article I handed you reported the finding that regions adding to about 20% of the land surface of the planet were expected to be converted to such regions, with little warning, intermittently. And yes - that is predicted to make them not very good for agriculture - something you proceeded to deny.
Of course they will, as I have repeatedly noted: you rely completely on the media feeds from American rightwing authoritarian sources, the media wing of American fascism, which has been backing the Republican Party for a few decades now, and they have been happy to supply you with all the means (Party memes, designed for campaign season, mostly) you find necessary. (That the American Civil War was fought over tax code amendments, not slavery; that child labor cannot be involved in a stable equilibrium of a market capitalist economy; that grad students and other vulnerable scientists adjust their topics and findings to please liberal and deep state funding sources and publication access, excluding good news or reassuring discoveries accordingly; etc).
You have never once fact-checked anything, on this forum, except Syrian troop movements. Not even when handed the relevant research directly. Simple laziness hardly explains such firm rejection of physical reality.
And once again: the relevance of your posts to these topics, not visible in the posts themselves (crank level idiocy as most of them are in content), has been your near - complete reliance on, faith in, the media feeds from the American fascist propaganda operations. That sometimes saves others almost as much work as it saves you - many people subjected to this weirdly and darkly comic barrage of goofy crap (high level Congressmen bringing snowballs unto the chamber floor to cast doubt on - on - not quite sure - they seem to be insisting that they aren't denying the warming itself any more, as they used to).
Different from CptBrk, who gives a link to the paper, iceaura intentionally hides the links. That means, he wants to prevent that I read those articles. So, just to clarify the rules: References to scientific papers have to be given in the usual format, else they don't count as evidence.
There is no necessity to teach Australians elementary things. They know such things themselves.
Fine, what's the problem? I do not pretend to be a specialist for all that - I simply question the alarmism, by looking at the arguments presented by the alarmists and answering them. Up to now, they have presented nothing which forced me to abandon the basic idea that some warming is even positive, that the time scale is slow enough for humans to succeed with adaptation. There was not even a necessity to hope for a moderate scenario, for the problems I had to consider even the worst case scenario was not that horrible. The techniques to handle the problems are well-known and old, my expectations have been initially based simply on common sense, but for many problems I have already improved this.
Feel free to explain what prevents building dikes. Remember, the basic technology is rather simple: Take a lot of stones, gravel, sand and so on and throw this into the water at the place where you want to have the dike. Of course, situations where you, like the Dutch, can gain a lot of new ground out of what is the sea now are rare. In this case, you need large areas of the sea which are shallow. But nothing prevents to build dikes at the shore, not for getting new land but only for protecting the existing land.
The time scale is 3-4 m per century in the worst case scenarios. So, time is certainly not the problem. Money is not really a problem too. Here I have even made a rough estimate of the most important part of the costs of such a project (the material of the dike and the transport).
Learn to read. The remark was not about this.
In your fantasy only. In reality the very method they used to get these results defines also a method to get a warning. You forgot to mention how many arid regions will be converted to non-arid ones because of the predicted increase in precipitation. And, of course, no iceaura posting without an explicit lie. I have no reason to deny the triviality that if a given region becomes more arid this is bad for agriculture.
The other standard repetitions of old lies disposed of.
Climate change... who cares? With oil this cheap, not only can we build enough dikes to stop a flood of Biblical proportions and filter all the salt out from leaching inland, but now we can also start moving everyone into orbital space hotels where they'll be safe from the worst effects of the CO2.
They are not counted as evidence in the first place. They are information for you, places where you can go to find evidence if you want any.
And you treat them as you always treat sources of information, etc - as propaganda, which you balance against the propaganda from your sources. You don't address physical reality at all.
That's what you do, yep.
It's all propaganda, in your world. No physical reality at all.
You pretend to be dealing with physical realities, and you don't know any. No "specialist" requirements are involved - the simple, basic, physical knowledge that you pretend to possess is all you would need.
Not the worst case, the worst case with larger than some small - maybe even single digit - probability.
And that rate would be catastrophic, to human civilization.
It would be catastrophic even if the effects accumulated steadily and evenly, rather than in the sudden crossing of tipping points and quick region-wide metamorphoses now expected as most likely.
Time is so short that only the very optimistic think we have much of a chance, even with a fully funded internationally coordinated effort backed by every industrial power.
Time is the central and most important problem. The rate of the change is the main source of threat.
The propaganda mongers - such as yourself and other rightwing apologists here - insist on burying that key fact: AGW is hitting ten times as fast as any global natural warming event in the geological record. The homeostatic feedback loops that stabilize ecological responses to global climate change now are failing now - and acceleration is expected.
I was unable to get a good estimate - the data and analysis in the article support anything from 0% to 80% (the low end more likely).
You also were unable to post that number - despite having much more interest in it, and no idea what was wrong with the assumptions you were making.
(It's almost certainly a small number - increases in torrential rain do not make up for concomitant increases in evapotranspirative deficit during long (predicted) droughts between storms, especially as most of it is likely to fall as torrential increases in currently existing heavy rainfall distributions.
That means the extra rain will be falling during otherwise regular strength and expected rainstorms, mostly where it's already very wet.
You can read about that factor in the article I referred to you, as one of their major findings in agreement with other research.
Yes, it was. That was the point of the reply - to make more clear what your remarks included in regards to physical reality.
Such as this one, in which some researchers seem to have tracked down a possible source of the methane boost that has become larger than predicted: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/17/eaaz5120?et_rid=49312811&et_cid=3305920
That is reassuring - the sudden NA methane boost the researchers had noticed a little while ago was scary, because most other sources of methane boost larger than predicted are more dangerous, and bode more ill. It's still only partly accounted for, that boost, but it's no longer leaning so heavily toward armageddon.
Unfortunately @Schmeltzer has decided to ignore the fact the for agriculture to be successful consistent, light to medium rain fall is ok but not torrential rainfall, massive hail and 200 kph winds. I am unsure why he is predicting favorable weather for farming when everything is pointing to just the opposite.
Czech republic is facing worst drought in 500 years...
src: The Watchers
Are you sure this would be a satisfactory solution for some 8 - 10 billion people?
In the actual information revolution, I don't want "any" information, there is enough. The information I want should be scientific information, not alarmist nonsense. Moreover, it should be relevant to my claims. Once you obfuscate your reference, and don't quote it, it is, with a far too high probability, irrelevant.
The worst case as considered in peer-reviewed scientific mainstream papers. And this worst case appears to be not catastrophic at all.
As usual, not without a lie. I have never questioned that AGW is much faster than any global natural warming event in the geological record. I compare it with another time scale - the time scale of building the appropriate infrastructure to adapt. Which is much shorter. Look at the infrastructure China has build during the last forty years.
About the arid regions which will be converted to non-arid ones because of the predicted increase in precipitation:
Fine. That means, except for the case it is in the 0%-20%, the problem of your 20% becoming more arid is only a problem of adaptation of agriculture to new places. I'm quite comfortable with the actual situation where we have agreement about precipitation increasing in the average and the parts becoming more arid as 20%, the parts becoming more wet 0% to 80%.
In principle not impossible. In some sense, one can even expect this, and it would even reduce the costs of adapation. Namely, the regions where most of the rain comes down are the mountains.
And this makes the situation quite comfortable for humanity. Namely, mountains are also the regions where it is quite easy to build dams. A quite small investment into a big dam creates a quite huge reservoir of water. Moreover, it also gives a quite large amount of green energy. Given that there is not much industry in the mountains upstream, it is usually also quite good quality water. It can be used for agriculture itself (fishing, aquaculture) and gives already a regular flow of water which can be used for irrigation downstream.
The article I was able to find despite your obfuscation. The standard reference in science is something different.
It was not. Here is the context of the quote you have replied to:
So, this part of the problem (rising sea level) was already handled in the first part of my discussion. Then I discussed a different problem, not related to rising sea level:
So, yet another lie. Ok, in this case may be not an intentional lie, but simply the inability to understand the arguments discussed in the context.
So, a completely human-made contribution without any causal connection with climate change. Except that it may enhance it for some time.
I'm not at all predicting favorable weather for farming, I'm predicting weather which allows for farming, if supported with adequate infrastructure.
I do not deny that building such infrastructure requires some investment. I deny that this will be unaffordable for humanity and lead to catastrophic consequences.
Gee, what a pity.
Perhaps you should...
"When scientists started to analyze the paleoclimate evidence in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, they found that the record also supported Milankovitch’s theory of when ice ages should occur. But they also found something that required additional explanation: some climate change appeared to have occurred very rapidly. Because Milankovitch’s theory tied climate change to the slow and regular variations in Earth’s orbit, the scientific community expected that climate change would also be slow and gradual. But the ice cores showed that while it took nearly 10,000 years for the Earth to totally emerge from the last ice age and warm to today’s balmy climate, one-third to one-half of the warming—about 15 degrees Fahrenheit—occurred in about 10 years, at least in Greenland. A closer look at marine sediments confirmed this finding. Although the overall timing of the ice ages was clearly tied to variations in the Earth’s orbit, other factors must have contributed to climate change as well. Something else made temperatures change very quickly..."
I dunno, you'll have to ask Schmelzer what he thinks about it. Maybe he just wants to build dikes and salt filters all around Russia with that roaring economy of theirs to pay for it.
Did you read what the article says about potential explanations for those findings? Does it not matter to you that this discovery only applies to one geographical region, not the planet as a whole? What makes you think it has any bearing on the present where the data is much more comprehensive and we know what is and isn't currently going on with our climate? I ask for like the fifth time now, if AGW isn't a major factor today then why is no one coming up with accurate predictive climate models that ignore it?
Separate names with a comma.