Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

[Schmelzer]

You are in error to classify sober and unemotional analyses and discussions of physical facts as hysteria, or panic of any kind.

If you think that the discussion about climate is "sober and unemotional analysis", sorry, I'm unable to follow. Anyway, this is only your personal claim.

Well, we are in no such danger - so you can see how an unrestricted discussion of the Holocaust looks, easily, by following us here.

I see it here, indeed. I made a very general remark about this - that if governments start to imprison people for questioning the official position, this is strong evidence that there is something wrong with the the official position - and already I'm already confronted with highly emotional attacks. So, no, even if you do not risk (yet) prison for Holocaust denial, the discussion is far from being unrestricted in the West.

You have a preconception of the direction of bias in abstracts of climate research, for example, which prevents you from noticing how often they are biased the other way from your expectations - downplaying and underemphasizing the dramatic implications of their actual data, rather than exaggerating them.

I do not need a preconception to see that in German mass media there is a 100% prejudice in one direction. All one has to do is to evaluate whatever soundbite related with "climate" and to estimate if it is positive or negative about the future. Maybe in America the situation is different - I see them much less than German, which I cannot completely avoid because of family. But what I see is not different. So, I think your different interpretation of what you see in the media is based on your own different position. What I interpret as part of a negative campaign you may interpret as "underemphasizing" - which means, emphasizing the negative things, but not enough, according to your own position.

They don't work without information. You've made several basic errors here by trusting them in matters unfamiliar to you.

Of course, you need some background information, say about the meaning of words to identify the value-laden ones. But they work surprisingly good without much specific information about the particular question considered in the article. And, sorry, if you claim I have made errors, that means nothing. You claim it far too often for this being more than a polemical soundbite.

As in the Piketty book - which you dismissed after finding in the first couple pages that he used tax data from businessmen, which they can manipulate, without ever reading enough to see how he used them. (There's a fairly long treatment, later in the book, of how he handled the matter of tax cheating and manipulation, how he treated the data and why, etc).

How much of the book I have actually read you don't know - given that what I have read there was not really important for the issues discussed here, there was no reason to write more about this. And it is fine that he has described how he has handled this matter. But this does not solve the problem that he has no better data. It is, of course, the job of the scientists to extract as much information as possible from the available data.

I check them against verifiable physical reality from other sources, and I check them against developments over time (propaganda cannot be designed to match the future consistently), and so forth.

That's fine. As if I would object to such methods.

Regarding the CO2 boost, for example, we have seen a consistent and secure alignment between the AGW alarmists's arguments and reports and analyses of twenty years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, and the events of my experience since as well as the reporting by other, unrelated sources. We have seen no such agreement between the claims of the "other side" and subsequent events or findings. We also have a solid and consistent agreement between AGW analyses and my own knowledge of various topics, as well as the requirements of reason and sense. Again: no such agreement is visible on the "other side" - their arguments are invalid (visible holes in their logic), their assertions in fields familiar to me are often false.

I have to admit that I have not cared about climate at all 20 years ago, and what I have seen does not look that consistent as you claim, except that it is consistently claimed that all the outcomes are horrible. But this is nothing I have studied in detail, more a general impression. The point which you do not seem to understand is that there is no "other side" in science in such a complex question. Once you find an "other side", you have an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In a scientific discussion, there would be different sides in every particular question, and the participants would be quite unpredictable - to support the mainstream in 9 cases but to object in 2 other cases would be natural, and the scientist with such an opinion would not even classify himself as being on some "other side".

Once an "other side" in constructed by artificially combining people who disagree with the mainstream in very different questions, it is clear that they would not agree on most questions. Which makes them weak in the ideological battle.

As I have already explained, I have no much doubt that the overall temperature is increasing. I think this is not a big problem. Of course, no change would be better, because change is always costly. But decreasing overall temperature would be much more problematic. But you use arguments against me as if I would have claimed that there is no increase of temperature at all. Because you classify me as being from the "other side". That means, I'm just "a horrible person lashing out at the world". (Ok, this was not your quote, but is there a big difference?)

 

[iceaura]

If you think that the discussion about climate is "sober and unemotional analysis", sorry, I'm unable to follow.

That's because you haven't read up on the sober and unemotional analysis, which is happening all around you, invisible to you. You lack information, see?

So, no, even if you do not risk (yet) prison for Holocaust denial, the discussion is far from being unrestricted in the West.

It has none of the restrictions or features you use to identify problems or propaganda. You can make any fool claim about the Holocaust you want to - go right ahead. Likewise with climate change. You won't be the first. The US public discussion is full of this crapola.

Of course, you need some background information, say about the meaning of words to identify the value-laden ones. But they work surprisingly good without much specific information about the particular question considered in the article.

No, they don't. At least, not on this forum.

And, sorry, if you claim I have made errors, that means nothing. You claim it far too often for this being more than a polemical soundbite.

Ha! Now that's funny. You could not have illustrated my point better if you had tried.

I do not need a preconception to see that in German mass media there is a 100% prejudice in one direction

You do need a preconception to have overlooked the actual biases in the abstracts of published research on the topic - they are often downplaying, minimizing, understating, even omitting from discussion entirely, the threat possibilities visible and implied by their raw data and initial analysis. That is the opposite of the bias you expect, which is why I think you missed it.

The point which you do not seem to understand is that there is no "other side" in science in such a complex question. Once you find an "other side", you have an ideological battle, not a scientific one.

So as I posted: handling information as if it were propaganda - something from a side - will mislead you.

As I have already explained, I have no much doubt that the overall temperature is increasing. I think this is not a big problem. Of course, no change would be better, because change is always costly. But decreasing overall temperature would be much more problematic.

Ok, again, you are ignorant. What you think - that AGW is "no big problem", that a decrease in temperature is relevant - is just silly, and reveals ignorance.

How much of the book I have actually read you don't know

I just take your word for all that stuff. You tell me you haven't bothered to read something, I believe you. Is that a problem?

 

[billvon]

There are people who have more knowledge than other people about some particular question. I do not like to present myself as somebody who knows everything. But I also do not tend to make claims without any knowledge as background.

You are currently doing so. You are making strong and unsubstantiated claims based on your admitted lack of knowledge.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's because you haven't read up on the sober and unemotional analysis, which is happening all around you, invisible to you. You lack information, see?

No. I get a lot of information all the time. I describe what I see in different terms, because my evaluation gives different results. And I do not plan to change the criteria of my evaluation. I have quite different ideas about what a sober and unemotional analysis looks like.

It has none of the restrictions or features you use to identify problems or propaganda. You can make any fool claim about the Holocaust you want to - go right ahead. Likewise with climate change. You won't be the first. The US public discussion is full of this crapola.

The US discussion is full of accusations. Which is something quite different.

No, they don't. At least, not on this forum.

For this forum, even the much simpler rule "who goes ad hominem is the loser" gives 95% success rate.

You do need a preconception to have overlooked the actual biases in the abstracts of published research on the topic - they are often downplaying, minimizing, understating, even omitting from discussion entirely, the threat possibilities visible and implied by their raw data and initial analysis. That is the opposite of the bias you expect, which is why I think you missed it.

The preconception you need for the justification of claims of "downplaying, minimizing, understating" - these terms make no sense without knowing what would be the content of the correct description. And I have not made a claim about scientific journals about climate change, but about German media coverage, using a quite simple more or less objective criterion: Is the particular claimed consequence of climate change a positive or a negative one? This gives 100% negative.

Just as an example, I remember a piece which was about a particular consequence - plants and animals which live now in the South can now move toward the North. So we can expect to observe in the North more animals and plants formerly living only in the South. In that piece, several such observations have been mentioned. But, now, the strange thing: All of them were bad, animals and plants which one would not like to have. Not a single positive example. Propaganda.

So as I posted: handling information as if it were propaganda - something from a side - will mislead you.

Sounds like you have completely misunderstood this point. In the normal, sober and unemotional scientific discussion of such a complex question like climate change there would be no "one side" and "other side". It is you who has introduced the "other side" into the discussion. So, it is you who has evaluated a discussion you claim to be a scientific one with criteria appropriate for handling propaganda.

There may be, of course, two sides is scientific discussions too - but this will be about particular, special questions. Does experiment X falsify theory Y? Is theory X preferable to theory Y? These are yes/no questions, with two possible answers, and, correspondingly, two groups of those who give different answers. Climate change is much more complex. If there will be some climate change, we have to expect many very different consequences, some of them positive, some negative. We will have disagreements about various numbers. 1 degree has other consequences than 2 degrees other than 3 degrees. There will be different expectations for different effects: More or less rain, more or less variations, the answers may be different for different regions and different times of the year. The answers may have different effects for different groups of the population, different industries, different crops and so on. And any two scientists thinking about all these questions will disagree about many of these questions. The only thing which can subdivide them all into one side and the other side is ideology.

Ok, again, you are ignorant. What you think - that AGW is "no big problem", that a decrease in temperature is relevant - is just silly, and reveals ignorance.

I prefer to use common sense. Where people tend to dream to live, if they had a free choice and enough money? Where do they tend to spend their holidays? Is it Antarctica or Caribbean? Cote d'Azur or Irland? It seems, they prefer higher temperatures. Do they prefer regions with a lot or without vegetation? Wald or desert? I would think they prefer more vegetation, so more CO2 will be fine. Do they prefer more or less rain? Given that no rain makes a region inhabitable, more rain will be preferable in the average. But, given that H2O is the main greenhouse gas, more rain is a main ingredient of a lot of scenarios with positive feedback, which is required to make climate change a problem.

I just take your word for all that stuff. You tell me you haven't bothered to read something, I believe you. Is that a problem?

The problem is that you generalize it. If I say I have not bothered to read much about subproblem X of problem Y, you feel free to claim I have not read anything about Y, Z, ... Quite similar to this guy:

You are currently doing so. You are making strong and unsubstantiated claims based on your admitted lack of knowledge.

This is a sort of anti-education. To be honest about not having read a lot about a particular question is punished. The result will be a lot of liars, who claim to have read everything. The American version of culture.

 

[iceaura]

No. I get a lot of information all the time. I describe what I see in different terms, because my evaluation gives different results.

You have badly misled yourself, by handling sober information as if it were propaganda. You are almost entirely ignorant about the basic physical reality of AGW. Your errors are low level, basic, simple mistakes, that no informed person would make.

For this forum, even the much simpler rule "who goes ad hominem is the loser" gives 95% success rate.

Not if you don't know what an ad hominem argument is. And you don't.

The preconception you need for the justification of claims of "downplaying, minimizing, understating" - these terms make no sense without knowing what would be the content of the correct description.

That's a contingent assessment, not a preconception. It happens after the article is read, not before as with you. And I told you exactly how one makes it - by comparing the data and analysis with the abstract and discussion. You can't see it, because you assume - preconception - the nature and direction of any bias you will find.

And I have not made a claim about scientific journals about climate change, but about German media coverage,

That is false. You have made several claims that contradict the contents of the scientific journals, which you are unable to distinguish from propaganda.

Just as an example, I remember a piece which was about a particular consequence - plants and animals which live now in the South can now move toward the North. So we can expect to observe in the North more animals and plants formerly living only in the South. In that piece, several such observations have been mentioned. But, now, the strange thing: All of them were bad, animals and plants which one would not like to have. Not a single positive example. Propaganda.

So you conclude what - that these bad invasions are not happening? That the invasions must be generally good, because some propagandist is trying to make them look bad?

Where people tend to dream to live, if they had a free choice and enough money? Where do they tend to spend their holidays? Is it Antarctica or Caribbean? Cote d'Azur or Irland? It seems, they prefer higher temperatures. Do they prefer regions with a lot or without vegetation? Wald or desert?.

Why do you think this silly and irrelevant meandering about preferred temperatures has anything to do with the threat of AGW? You post it, people tell you again that the rate of increase is the problem, not the warmth, and you keep posting it anyway. Then you call it "common sense".

I would think they prefer more vegetation, so more CO2 will be fine

Ignorance. Read up, learn something.

The problem is that you generalize it

No, I don't. I've been taking your word for all of that, specifically, just as posted.

In the normal, sober and unemotional scientific discussion of such a complex question like climate change there would be no "one side" and "other side".

And there isn't, in that discussion. You should read up in it.

I prefer to use common sense.

Clinging to multiply contradicted opinions originally based in ignorance and obvious error is not common sense.

 

[Schmelzer]

A post where one can remove a lot of meaningless "you are stupid" type claims. Let's see what remains:

And I told you exactly how one makes it - by comparing the data and analysis with the abstract and discussion. You can't see it, because you assume - preconception - the nature and direction of any bias you will find.

You have, obviously, forgotten what I have claimed many times and shown - as an example - for your article about child labor: That in ideologically distorted sciences there often is a difference between the abstract and the content, with the abstract more in line with the politically correct position. How do you think I have found this, if not by comparing the data of the paper itself with the abstracts, often enough to see the pattern?

You have made several claims that contradict the contents of the scientific journals, which you are unable to distinguish from propaganda.

If this happens, quote the content of scientific journals which contradict my claims.

So you conclude what - that these bad invasions are not happening? That the invasions must be generally good, because some propagandist is trying to make them look bad?

LOL. Are you really so unable to get this elementary point? Is it that difficult to see that my point was that all plants and animal - good as well as bad ones - will move to the North if temperatures raise? And that it was the point that 100% of those mentioned were bad ones, not a single one good? Don't you get that the same criterion would tell me that mentioning 100% good, and not a single bad one, would have to be rejected as propaganda too, and for the same reason - the obvious one-sidedness?

Why do you think this silly and irrelevant meandering about preferred temperatures has anything to do with the threat of AGW? You post it, people tell you again that the rate of increase is the problem, not the warmth, and you keep posting it anyway.

It is one people, you, who tells me this again and again. I do not really care about your personal opinion about what is dangerous. I care about what the global mass media sell us as dangerous.

You have, of course, a point that fast change is worse than slow change, because one needs time to adapt and adjust. But climate change is slow change. In comparison to the four/five years which count for democratic politicians it is very slow change. So, even this will not help you to create a catastrophe out of the rising temperature.

Then you call it "common sense". Ignorance. Read up, learn something.

I know, writing "common sense" I have provoked such a reaction. It usually works. Using common sense is the horror of ideologues. They have always hated common sense, and presented those who refuse to give up common sense as stupid, reactionary and so on.

About the "other side":

And there isn't, in that discussion. You should read up in it.

Oh, there is no "other side"? Fine. Means you have talked in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/carbon-dioxide-rise-in-the-atmosphere.152504/page-7#post-3348951 about .... whatever.

 

[iceaura]

You have, obviously, forgotten what I have claimed many times and shown - as an example - for your article about child labor: That in ideologically distorted sciences there often is a difference between the abstract and the content, with the abstract more in line with the politically correct position. How do you think I have found this, if not by comparing the data of the paper itself with the abstracts, often enough to see the pattern?

By misreading the abstract and the content according to your preconceptions of what the bias will be, and overlooking the bias actually present. That's every example from you so far, that I have to work with. As far as I have seen, that's all you do.

I know, writing "common sense" I have provoked such a reaction. It usually works. Using common sense is the horror of ideologues.

Common sense doesn't work without information, often called "experience", these days often involving "research". Worse, it is how you misidentify information as propaganda, actively preventing you from becoming informed. It's where your preconceptions have misled you, as mentioned.

Like this:

Is it that difficult to see that my point was that all plants and animal - good as well as bad ones - will move to the North if temperatures raise?

Your point is 1) False
and 2) misleading to the extent it is true.

It is likely that plants and animals humans don't like or don't notice will tend to move first and faster and with more effect on humans, for various ecological and economic adn cultural reasons. So we most likely face various serious problems from invasive species first (hundreds of years) then partial remediation over a long time (thousands of years). {So the range of the yellow fever mosquito (Aedes egypti) is predicted by some to shrink in the longer term from AGW (a good thing for us), but first it is predicted (and observed, now) that it will expand and spread a half dozen very bad diseases to large human populations currently free of them, then over time it will die out in parts of its current range} {So the ranges of some valuable trees will spread north somewhat - but most valuable trees take a long time to grow and adjust to new seasons etc} {So good plants and animals will spread up the mountains in the tropics - but there is less land area higher up, and no source to replace the losses lower down}

Again: information. You need to learn more, before your common sense will work. This:

And that it was the point that 100% of those mentioned were bad ones, not a single one good? Don't you get that the same criterion would tell me that mentioning 100% good, and not a single bad one, would have to be rejected as propaganda too, and for the same reason - the obvious one-sidedness?

is a mistake, an unsound evaluation of propaganda leading to a rejection of information.

It is one people, you, who tells me this again and again. I do not really care about your personal opinion about what is dangerous. I care about what the global mass media sell us as dangerous.

I care about what the sober and unemotional research tells us is dangerous. You need to read up on that, before forming opinions.

You have, of course, a point that fast change is worse than slow change, because one needs time to adapt and adjust. But climate change is slow change.

The climate changes from AGW are currently predicted, by the sober and unemotional research who are currently downplaying their findings (the normal attitude of careful researchers), to be fast. According to current observations and best or "most likely" predictions, AGW is proceeding globally about ten times faster than the temp increases in the paleontological record. The changes from that are predicted (and beginning to be observed, now) to be faster than most human civilizations or ecological systems can adjust - not in terms of expense, but in terms of realistic capability. That rate is the main source of the temperature threats - and other CO2 threats, such as ocean acidification, are also made much worse by the current unprecedented rate of onset.

Common sense does not work in situations of ignorance, except by telling you to refrain from forming stronger opinions than your knowledge base. First, do yourself no harm.

 

[sculptor]

It seems that much of the concern over rising CO2 levels are predicated on the most likely erroneous assumption that pre industrial CO2 levels were rather constant in the 280 ppm range drawn from ice core data.
Perhaps a different perspective would be enlightening?
Let us consider the CO2 ranges indicated by plant stomata.
Here are 2 of the stomatal studies, compared to CO2 levels as indicated by ice cores.

Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.

If the stomata data more closely represent the amount of atmospheric CO2, then looking at the climate before, during, and after a CO2 spike as indicated by the stomata data would be a wise choice?
Whad did the climate doo about the time of the CO2 spike around 5-600 ad?

From wiki:
The extreme weather events of 535–536 were the most severe and protracted short-term episodes of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years.

We have a lot of gaps in the record!
I sincerely hope that those who would study paleo and modern stomata receive adequate funding!
Go science!

 

[iceaura]

It seems that much of the concern over rising CO2 levels are predicated on the most likely erroneous assumption that pre industrial CO2 levels were rather constant in the 280 ppm range drawn from ice core data.

No, you have mistaken the argument. Fine resolution constancy is not assumed. Averages are calculated over time. The effects of the current boost in CO2 are predicted from first principles and then compared with observation, all based on the situation now.

If the stomata data more closely represent the amount of atmospheric CO2, then looking at the climate before, during, and after a CO2 spike as indicated by the stomata data would be a wise choice?

Sure. Keep in mind that the CO2 spikes of the past are likely to have been caused in the first place by other things that also affected the weather (say, a volcano emitting CO2 and also suppressing plant growth on a large scale) and other temporary blips.

The extreme weather events of 535–536 were the most severe and protracted short-term episodes of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years.

Sounds like a volcano, to me - first guess. Could also have been a release of an inland meltwater lake, getting through an ice plug and flooding the northern Atlantic or Pacific with a floating layer of icewater. Or the one causing and piling on the other. Nothing prevents another volcano from doing the same to us now. For a year or two.

edit in: Hey, look at what I found: http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/aag-eruption-el-salvadors-ilopango-explains-ad-536-cooling Nothing like actually checking stuff out, for edification.

 

[billvon]

This is a sort of anti-education. To be honest about not having read a lot about a particular question is punished.

Not at all. To be honest about not having read a lot about a particular question here initially generates informative posts. I posted one such post above, listing the basic principles underlying climate change. Your response was arrogant and condescending, implying you already knew it all - "why do you think there is anything new for me?"

After the person posting the question is shown to be someone not interested in learning, then we generally give up. However, if you are willing to learn, rather than just posting attacks, then let me know and I will post some more basic information.

The result will be a lot of liars, who claim to have read everything. The American version of culture.

As opposed to your version, which combines a lack of knowledge, arrogance and condescension? Not the best approach to learning.

 

[Schmelzer]

To be honest about not having read a lot about a particular question here initially generates informative posts. I posted one such post above, listing the basic principles underlying climate change. Your response was arrogant and condescending, implying you already knew it all - "why do you think there is anything new for me?"

This was because of your tone, and because I have not questioned before what you have claimed. So, I have interpreted this post not as informative, but as aggressive, and responded correspondingly. If you would have liked to give an informative post, you would have done differently. At least I think so.

However, if you are willing to learn, rather than just posting attacks, then let me know and I will post some more basic information.

If I want to learn something, I start to read the relevant literature, instead of asking laymen with a lot of obvious ideological prejudices for teaching me. If you think I have made some errors, quote what you think is the error, explain what you think is correct, and refer to some literature for more details. This would be really helpful.

Common sense doesn't work without information, often called "experience", these days often involving "research". Worse, it is how you misidentify information as propaganda, actively preventing you from becoming informed. It's where your preconceptions have misled you, as mentioned.

It does, because without common sense we would not even know where to search for information. Common sense is the base of the scientific method, which is simply educated common sense. Then, of course, common sense will tell us where more information is needed, and there additional information will have only a small impact.

Then, you simply repeat claims about me being stupid without evidence, not really helpful. Of course, there is a danger that identifying a reliable source as a propaganda source - and reverse - will lead to distortions. That's why one should care about how to identify them correctly. You have not shown any evidence that you care yourself, by presenting and discussing general criteria and other methods. So I guess you simply follow others you trust - your party line or whatever. And if my estimates, based on my own evaluation, differ from your, hm, claims, you name this an error without evidence.

It is likely that plants and animals humans don't like or don't notice will tend to move first and faster and with more effect on humans, for various ecological and economic adn cultural reasons.

Explain them. There is, of course, some difference between what humans actively care about (agricultural crops, domestic animals) and all the rest, which distributes independent of humans. For the last big group, how humans like them makes no difference. So, in this group there will be no difference between distribution velocities of good and bad from this group. Your argument could make sense only if in this group, the clear majority would be bad. Why do you think so? I think that most of them are good, simply because their main effect on other thing would be that there is more food for whatever other animals.

Then, let's look at the useful plants humans care about. Each peasant will care about what he could raise optimally on his land. And he would be able to take into account for this even scientific predictions about the future climate, even before it changes. Ok, this information can be wrong and misleading - this is the problem we talk about here - but if correct it would give the useful plants and animals a big advantage. They could distribute much faster into the newly available regions - without geographical obstacles, even over long distances almost immediately.

There may be, of course, good trees and bad trees. But all trees need a long time to raise, and would have a very low speed if the distribution would be purely natural. Instead, trees preferred by humans could be raised almost immediately, using greenhouses and so initially, and one generation would be sufficient to distribute them wherever they are liked.

Again: information. You need to learn more, before your common sense will work.

Again you claim that I no not enough, which is cheap polemics. You have made an argument, fine. But, sorry, up to now my common sense was sufficient to counter your argument. So, my modified point is now that good and bad plants and animals will distribute with equal speed, as far as humans don't care, but those good things humans care about will reach new areas much faster. You have made some claim about moscitos, interesting, but without reference to a paper where your scenario is described and justified - it is probably top secret information or so - so that I cannot even evaluate if there is more to justify your idea.

This: is a mistake, an unsound evaluation of propaganda leading to a rejection of information.

And this is only a claim. Supported by nothing. Because even if my argument would not be sufficient, and there would be other, yet hidden, mechanisms which prefer bad animals, this would hardly lead to the 100% bad things of this propaganda film. Then: Do I have rejected the information coming from this propaganda source? No, not at all. I pray all the time that one can, and should, use propaganda sources to extract information from them. In particular in the situation of war, where we have only propaganda sources, from all sides, we simply have no better choices.

The climate changes from AGW are currently predicted, by the sober and unemotional research who are currently downplaying their findings (the normal attitude of careful researchers), to be fast. According to current observations and best or "most likely" predictions, AGW is proceeding globally about ten times faster than the temp increases in the paleontological record.

This may be fast in comparison with other climate changes. But what matters is if it is fast in comparison with the development of humanity, which is a large scale and actually extremely fast change in various industries. So, your claim sounds nice (in the sense of horrible), but if that is really a problem is a quite different question.

The changes from that are predicted (and beginning to be observed, now) to be faster than most human civilizations or ecological systems can adjust - not in terms of expense, but in terms of realistic capability.

Humans have to adapt to many changes which are much faster. Like the Syrian people to the terror war initiated by the NATO support for "moderate" terrorists. They have hard times, but I'm optimistic that they will survive. In comparison with these hardships, climate change is nothing worth to be mentioned.

 

[billvon]

This was because of your tone, and because I have not questioned before what you have claimed. So, I have interpreted this post not as informative, but as aggressive, and responded correspondingly. If you would have liked to give an informative post, you would have done differently. At least I think so.

I can repost it with smilies if you like; won't change the content.

If I want to learn something, I start to read the relevant literature, instead of asking laymen with a lot of obvious ideological prejudices for teaching me. If you think I have made some errors, quote what you think is the error, explain what you think is correct, and refer to some literature for more details. This would be really helpful.

Great! Post some actual opinions on climate change, rather than personal attacks, anti-US propaganda and complaints about how Holocaust deniers are treated.

 

[Schmelzer]

I can repost it with smilies if you like; won't change the content.

As if smilies would make it informational.

Great! Post some actual opinions on climate change, rather than personal attacks, anti-US propaganda and complaints about how Holocaust deniers are treated.

Why do you think opinions about climate change today are more interesting than, say, opinions of Germans about Jews in the 1930s? I think opinions are in general not very interesting - except as counterarguments against some claimed democrats, who insist on doing things against the opinions of the concerned people. (For example, about Crimea, or about Assad participating in future democratic elections in Syria.) Outside such special applications, opinion polls are not more than some information about the efficiency of propaganda.

Then, I prefer to post about what I find interesting and important. In a forum full of US propaganda, I think to counter the US lies is a very important information. One does not need much - simply to give the information from other sources. Intelligent readers learn at least one thing: That there are other opinions about this around the world, outside the Western mainstream press. Some of them may decide to find out who is right. And if one finds that those sources they have trusted before have lied, this is always an important insight.

About the fate of Holocaust deniers I couldn't care less. But I think they are a useful example about the more and more obvious fact that "freedom of speech" in the West is only a propaganda lie. If one cannot even talk about alternative ideas about some (quite irrelevant for today) historical events from more than 70 years ago without risk of imprisonment, to name this "freedom of speech" is nothing but a lie.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Why do you think opinions about climate change today are more interesting than, say, opinions of Germans about Jews in the 1930s?

They're more interesting because they're topical. At this point, at least in the USA, antisemitism is not a topic that most people feel like discussing, for the precise reason that it is not topical. A considerably less violent version of antisemitism was visible in the USA before WWII, but when our parents or grandparents saw the photos of Auschwitz, overnight they all became supporters of the Zionist cause, and in my opinion, this was the beginning of the steady trend toward the anti-Islam and anti-Arab sentiment that's driving current U.S. politics toward disaster.

I think opinions are in general not very interesting - except as counterarguments against some claimed democrats, who insist on doing things against the opinions of the concerned people. (For example, about Crimea, or about Assad participating in future democratic elections in Syria.)

Many people are well-educated, well-informed and very bright, and their opinions can be very informative and helpful.

Outside such special applications, opinion polls are not more than some information about the efficiency of propaganda.

Oh well, yes to that. Hearing one person elaborate on his opinion so you can understand how he came to it and how he supports it, can be a very educational experience. But reading the yes/no ratio toward a list of two-sentence opinions is a waste of time and newsprint.

In a forum full of US propaganda, I think to counter the US lies is a very important information.

You've just broken your own rule and offered an opinion: that U.S. opinions are dishonest. In general, dishonesty is the province of our politicians, plutocrats and priests. The average citizen believes what he says, although he may not have thought it through very coherently.

One does not need much - simply to give the information from other sources.

Two of our most prominent sources are in fact not Americans, and their non-American perspective is quite interesting.

• Fareed Zakaria, an Indian expat whose columns are widely printed and who is often invited to speak on news shows.
• Trevor Noah, a South African (of African ancestry) who recently took over as the star of "The Daily Show" after Jon Stewart retired. This show has a comic undertone but nonetheless tackles important issues seriously.

  About the fate of Holocaust deniers I couldn't care less. But I think they are a useful example about the more and more obvious fact that "freedom of speech" in the West is only a propaganda lie. If one cannot even talk about alternative ideas about some (quite irrelevant for today) historical events from more than 70 years ago without risk of imprisonment, to name this "freedom of speech" is nothing but a lie.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany for reasons that are obvious, whether or not they're fair. You can't even display a swastika in Germany. In the USA, Holocaust denial is a rather rare opinion, but no one is punished for it. Closer to home is the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that originally arose after the Confederacy lost the Civil War. Their mission was to keep the newly freed Afro-Americans from actually exercising their freedom, and many lynchings and other types of murder, as well as less violent crimes, were perpetrated with almost no investigation by the still-racist local and state governments. My point is that the KKK still exists. They occasionally organize a parade in one or another Southern state, and the municipal government dutifully provides them with an official parade permit since, to their credit, they always march peacefully, if not respectfully. Hundreds of people line the sidewalks and throw rotten fruit at them, to make it clear that although racism is hardly dead in the USA, no one is allowed to celebrate it.

Thus my strong opposition to the various anti-Nazi laws in Europe. When a group of antisemites (hmmm, spell-check says that isn't a word, but then what the hell is the right word?) got their act together and organized a Holocaust-Denial convention, the only place that welcomed them with open arms was IRAN! Those folks spent a week being praised by their hosts, and being hassled by few or no Jews. (And at this point it's imperative to note that by Iranian law there are always one or two Jewish representatives in parliament, and their Jewish communities are actually at peace with their fellow citizens.)

Imagine for a moment that they could have gotten permission to hold their convention in Berlin, Prague, Warsaw, Vienna, Paris or Copenhagen. Every time one of those guys had to leave the room and go to the bathroom, a dozen Holocaust survivors with short sleeves showing their tattoos would have shadowed their every move.

I like our way better. You can stand up on a pedestal in the center of Baltimore, a black-majority city (and one mile from my home), and shout any obscenities or other insults to the quickly growing crowd of Afro-Americans. The police (most of whom are Afro-Americans too!) would arrive within a few minutes, and if you had already been injured, they'd do their best to arrest your attacker. Otherwise they'd make sure you were safe until you left.

 

[Schmelzer]

Almost complete agreement, except for:

You've just broken your own rule and offered an opinion: that U.S. opinions are dishonest.

I have no rule that one should not offer opinions. They may be a starting point for exchange of arguments. And if I talk about US-lies, it does not mean that all US claims are lies. It means I counter those claims in a US forum which I have been able to identify as lies. (Agreement that those who distribute them may be victims instead of liars.)

 

[billvon]

As if smilies would make it informational.

The smilies don't matter; it was informational from the get-go. But since you thought it was "aggressive" clearly the emotional content was important to you; smilies might have helped.

Why do you think opinions about climate change today are more interesting than, say, opinions of Germans about Jews in the 1930s?

Because this thread is entitled "Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere" not "opinions of Germans about Jews in the 1930's." Do you have any actual comments/questions about AGW gases in the atmosphere? Or are your replies just a way to whine about the US?

 

[iceaura]

It does, because without common sense we would not even know where to search for information

Common sense will not tell you where to search for information, unless you have some information about where information may be found.

Then, you simply repeat claims about me being stupid without evidence, - -

I don't believe I have ever claimed you were stupid. Even once. And of course I have plenty of evidence for my claims about your ignorance, etc, in this field - namely, the quoted examples of your posting, you own descriptions of your state of knowledge, etc. Read on.

Humans have to adapt to many changes which are much faster. Like the Syrian people to the terror war initiated by the NATO support for "moderate" terrorists. They have hard times, but I'm optimistic that they will survive. In comparison with these hardships, climate change is nothing worth to be mentioned.

Well, let's see:
1) The carbon boost is likely to impose hardships the equal or more of the Syrian disaster - even just in the lower ranges of the predicted climate changes, ocean acidifications, etc.
2) The Syrian mess itself is likely to have had its roots in climate change - the beginning of it, at least in active disaster form, was a severe and very unusual drought similar in place and time to the AGW predictions. It's not just - or even mostly - the weather, that's going to be the hardships, but the wars, diseases, extinctions and invasions, migrations, etc.
3) The "adaptation" of the Syrians is to have survived catastrophe - most or many of them. We would prefer not to create the disaster, or at least minimize and ameliorate it.
4) Survival is not the first or predominant worry - it is almost (but not quite) certain that human beings will survive the CO2 boost as a species. The worries are more along the line of severe hardships and a loss of capability for modern civilization over large areas. And of course the degradation of the wildlife and non-human regions of the planet. Catastrophes, disasters.

There may be, of course, good trees and bad trees. But all trees need a long time to raise, and would have a very low speed if the distribution would be purely natural. Instead, trees preferred by humans could be raised almost immediately, using greenhouses and so initially, and one generation would be sufficient to distribute them wherever they are liked.

When you know nothing about "raising" trees, the predicted rates and effects of climate change, the role of greenhouses, the natural distribution methods and speeds and environmental requirements of trees, the length of a "generation", the characteristic differences between crop and weed trees, and so forth, simply say nothing. What you posted there is called in tennis an "unforced error".

Because even if my argument would not be sufficient, and there would be other, yet hidden, mechanisms which prefer bad animals, this would hardly lead to the 100% bad things of this propaganda film.

1) They aren't hidden. They're fairly well studied and discussed. You are ignorant. 2) But it might (I haven't seen it) lead to the acceptance of the main thesis of the film as accurately informative and supported, and certainly would prevent any informed and responsible person from simply rejecting it as propaganda on such grounds as you described.

This may be fast in comparison with other climate changes. But what matters is if it is fast in comparison with the development of humanity, which is a large scale and actually extremely fast change in various industries

It is predicted to be fast enough to overwhelm any currently visible possibility of avoiding various catastrophes. Among the several reasons for this is that most human civilization is based on ecological circumstances incapable of "adjusting" with the necessary rapidity - river delta rice fields, for example, depend on river deltas, which take some time to form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Vietnam

In a forum full of US propaganda, I think to counter the US lies is a very important information. One does not need much - simply to give the information from other sources.

You have no source of information about climate change, because you are unable to distinguish between information and propaganda in this field.

About the fate of Holocaust deniers I couldn't care less. But I think they are a useful example about the more and more obvious fact that "freedom of speech" in the West is only a propaganda lie. If one cannot even talk about alternative ideas about some (quite irrelevant for today) historical events from more than 70 years ago without risk of imprisonment, to name this "freedom of speech" is nothing but a lie.

You are talking to a forum full of people who are subject to no such restrictions on the discussion of the Holocaust, AGW, or anything else. None. There is no such threat whatsoever to anyone here, or the hundreds of millions of people they live among.

And if one finds that those sources they have trusted before have lied, this is always an important insight.

By the look of things, all your trusted sources dealing with the CO2 rise in the atmosphere have been lying to you. So - when does the insight show up?

 

[Schmelzer]

Common sense will not tell you where to search for information, unless you have some information about where information may be found.

I think common sense gives us good recommendations. Namely, follow the recommendation of other people where one can find information. Then, evaluate it, to find out if the information has some quality or not.

I don't believe I have ever claimed you were stupid. Even once.

You have not used the word "stupid", but the intention was clear enough. And that you have misused my clarifications about where I have not read much to claim that I'm ignorant in almost everything where you disagree with me is something everybody who likes can check himself.

1) The carbon boost is likely to impose hardships the equal or more of the Syrian disaster - even just in the lower ranges of the predicted climate changes, ocean acidifications, etc.

I doubt very much.

2) The Syrian mess itself is likely to have had its roots in climate change - the beginning of it, at least in active disaster form, was a severe and very unusual drought similar in place and time to the AGW predictions. It's not just - or even mostly - the weather, that's going to be the hardships, but the wars, diseases, extinctions and invasions, migrations, etc.

Droughts always happen, and if a war starts, such natural disasters will usually play a role too. But to attribute every natural disaster to AGW is nothing but AGW propaganda.

3) The "adaptation" of the Syrians is to have survived catastrophe - most or many of them. We would prefer not to create the disaster, or at least minimize and ameliorate it.
4) Survival is not the first or predominant worry - it is almost (but not quite) certain that human beings will survive the CO2 boost as a species. The worries are more along the line of severe hardships and a loss of capability for modern civilization over large areas.

Fine. But in this case it is counterproductive to create a panic. What the AGW propaganda is trying to do. With claims like your above, that what we have to expect - all of us - is even worse than the Syrian war.

There would be a nice, simple and reasonable recommendation to politicians: Tax CO2 creation instead of taxing, say, income.

When you know nothing about "raising" trees, the predicted rates and effects of climate change, the role of greenhouses, the natural distribution methods and speeds and environmental requirements of trees, the length of a "generation", the characteristic differences between crop and weed trees, and so forth, simply say nothing. What you posted there is called in tennis an "unforced error".

And all this text is nothing but yet another "you are stupid" claim.

If you think I have made some error, and some characteristic difference between crop and weed trees makes an important difference, so that one of my claims appears false, fine, present the argument. I would be interested to learn. The information I can extract from this text is, roughly, that there exists some additional information about differences between crop and weed trees. Which is not new at all, because there exists additional information about almost everything. The point which would make this information interesting remains hidden.

1) They aren't hidden. They're fairly well studied and discussed. You are ignorant. 2) But it might (I haven't seen it) lead to the acceptance of the main thesis of the film as accurately informative and supported, and certainly would prevent any informed and responsible person from simply rejecting it as propaganda on such grounds as you described.

Whatever, they remain hidden from the readers of this forum. No quote, no link. So, this is, again, yet another "you are stupid" claim.

It is predicted to be fast enough to overwhelm any currently visible possibility of avoiding various catastrophes. Among the several reasons for this is that most human civilization is based on ecological circumstances incapable of "adjusting" with the necessary rapidity - river delta rice fields, for example, depend on river deltas, which take some time to form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Vietnam

And this completely ignores the rapid progress of humanity. Humanity today is global, what would have been a catastrophe deadly for whole civilizations would be today some local problem, which could be solved in part by switching to other local industries, in part by creating new, different ones, in part by emigration. I have admitted already that change is costly. But there is a difference between costs and a catastrophe.

You have no source of information about climate change, because you are unable to distinguish between information and propaganda in this field.

And yet another "you are stupid". How you distinguish between information and propaganda remains hidden. We probably have to ask you what is information, and what is propaganda. Or joepistole. Instead, I have explained some of my techniques. You have not objected to these techniques themself. All we see are similar "you are stupid" claims.

You are talking to a forum full of people who are subject to no such restrictions on the discussion of the Holocaust, AGW, or anything else. None. There is no such threat whatsoever to anyone here, or the hundreds of millions of people they live among.

Correct about the danger of imprisonment. But you completely ignore the penalties in form of personal attacks. You completely ignore that people have good reasons to be afraid of such personal attacks. Because history is full of examples where we have, initially, only verbal personal attacks, but imprisonment and murder at the end. I have been called here Holocaust denier, climate change denier. Harmless, I can ignore it. I have no job to loose, I don't live in America, don't want to live there, so I'm not afraid of what will happen there.

By the look of things, all your trusted sources dealing with the CO2 rise in the atmosphere have been lying to you. So - when does the insight show up?

Not at all. You don't know which sources dealing with CO2 I have trusted. And which part of information I have trusted and which I have checked using other sources. You have not even understood the main point that there is no simple on/off for trust. I trust even BBC about the weather prediction, and even a murderer if he admits murder. I never completely trust a single source.

 

[iceaura]

Droughts always happen, and if a war starts, such natural disasters will usually play a role too.

The drought was unprecedented in modern times, and it hit before the war.

But to attribute every natural disaster to AGW is nothing but AGW propaganda.

That's why we don't do that. Meanwhile, to deny the possibility that a predicted effect of AGW - predicted in nature, time, and location - might have been due to AGW, is to fly in the face of that famous "common sense". We shouldn't do that either.

Fine. But in this case it is counterproductive to create a panic. What the AGW propaganda is trying to do. With claims like your above, that what we have to expect - all of us - is even worse than the Syrian war.

Not "all of us" - just some of us. Like the Syrians themselves - in the middle of a drought-launched civil war.

So the AGW research findings and forecasts and so forth are kind of alarming, if you consider what they suggest is possible, even likely. Yeah - they are. How is it "counterproductive" or "panic" to get a realistic handle on what threats we face?

Whatever, they remain hidden from the readers of this forum

{research and analysis and theory showing why CO2 boost altered range in species of animals would most likely be neutral or destructive, rather than beneficial} They aren't hidden if you look, which you should do before dismissing warnings about such species as propaganda based on an uninformed "common sense" assumption of balance between good and bad species . I handed you three different kinds of example in post 147 - the lesson is: your common sense is only as good as your information base.

And this completely ignores the rapid progress of humanity.

No, it doesn't.

Humanity today is global, what would have been a catastrophe deadly for whole civilizations would be today some local problem, which could be solved in part by switching to other local industries, in part by creating new, different ones, in part by emigration.

Humanity has been global for 20,000 years. All problems in that time have been local, and as far as the CO2 boost is concerned they will probably (barring the methane bomb) continue to be. A fair number of AGW problems, for example, we expect will look like the current Syrian mess, which may in fact be one of them. And so you can see an example of how such "local" problems will be handled, at least some of the time.

But there is a difference between costs and a catastrophe.

That depends on how high those costs are.

And yet another "you are stupid". How you distinguish between information and propaganda remains hidden.

Actually, no, I have posted brief descriptions two or three times now, and you have quoted at least one of them.
Meanwhile, how you distinguish between them is not hidden either - you described it - and its results (you posting error because you corrected for assumed propaganda using an uninformed "common sense") are obvious.

- - Because history is full of examples where we have, initially, only verbal personal attacks, but imprisonment and murder at the end
- - -
Harmless, I can ignore it. I have no job to loose, I don't live in America, don't want to live there, so I'm not afraid of what will happen there.

Great. We who live in America, or in the other countries represented, are not afraid of that stuff either (in this arena) - so that kind of threat is not a factor in a CO2 boost discussion.

So leave it out.

Not at all. You don't know which sources dealing with CO2 I have trusted.

I know what kind of sources you trusted, by what you post. That the feedback from water vapor and open ocean and wildfire soot and so forth is "speculative", for example. They have all been lying to anyone consulting them, so which specific one(s) you picked makes little difference in that assessment.

You promised insight, from learning that your sources have been lying to you. It's overdue.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's why we don't do that.

So, ok, let's forget about this book which was doing that - namely attributing those droughts to climate change.

Meanwhile, to deny the possibility that a predicted effect of AGW - predicted in nature, time, and location - might have been due to AGW, is to fly in the face of that famous "common sense". We shouldn't do that either.

Ok. So we are, first, back to the question if AGW will lead to more droughts or not. My point was that AGW will be important only if it also leads to more H2O in the atmosphere. But this means more rain. Of course, locally this may give less rain, because the patterns change. But all over the world, in the average, there will be more rain.

Or we have, instead, a counterreaction, more CO2 leads to less H2O, with more droughts, but in this case we would have a counter-effect to the temperature increase, because H2O is the most important greenhouse gas.

So the AGW research findings and forecasts and so forth are kind of alarming, if you consider what they suggest is possible, even likely.

Here is the main point where I disagree. I see no fair consideration of what follows. The actual temperature is not the optimal one for life, and is below the optimum. If the climate change predicted would be lowering of temperature, I would be on the side of those who think something has to be done. But not if the temperature is shifting closer to the optimum.

{research and analysis and theory showing why CO2 boost altered range in species of animals would most likely be neutral or destructive, rather than beneficial} They aren't hidden if you look, which you should do before dismissing warnings about such species as propaganda based on an uninformed "common sense" assumption of balance between good and bad species . I handed you three different kinds of example in post 147 - the lesson is: your common sense is only as good as your information base.

I have answered that post, with counterarguments in #151.

Meanwhile, how you distinguish between them is not hidden either - you described it - and its results (you posting error because you corrected for assumed propaganda using an uninformed "common sense") are obvious.

No, they are your personal polemics, nothing more.

I know what kind of sources you trusted, by what you post. That the feedback from water vapor and open ocean and wildfire soot and so forth is "speculative", for example.

This is a quite general consideration. Everything which is not direct, but indirect, has to be taken with a higher degree of doubt. So, this does not even depend on reading some literature, but is a quite general problem of modelling something very complex.

Will there be more or less wildfires? If it is more rainy (with more H2O in the atmosphere) wildfires will be less problematic. What will be the influence of wildfire soot - increase or decrease temperature? I don't know, what I know is that it is a good fertilizer.

You promised insight, from learning that your sources have been lying to you. It's overdue.

You have been unable to show that I'm wrong even with my simple common sense arguments, which should be a triviality if you would have a special background about all this. You have been wrong with your guesses of which literature I consider as reliable.