Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

[Schmelzer]

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

Maybe, but this will never lead to serious problems. Because if many farms break, so that the reduction in crop production becomes essential, the price of the crops will raise, and the remaining farms will be fine. That's simple market economy.

No weather certainty= no crop insurance = no crop

There is no weather certainty, and never has been, but there are crops. Insurance costs may increase, which will raise the prices, in the worst case.

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

Such things have happened all the time all over the world. Today, all this is much less harmful than in the past, given that things can be imported from somewhere else if necessary, and farmers are only a few percents of the population, which can use insurance.

If it were stable there would be no hysterics, now would there?

If they seem useful to politics, there would be. Hysterics can be generated out of nothing.

Stable deteriorating conditions is also stable, where the trend to greater instability is steady, this is also stable yes?

Feel free to play with words.

Our staple reserves are already depleted and trending towards depletion. Supermarkets will keep the shelves full as part of marketing face, not because they have the commodities to sell.
It will not be long before wheat, rice, corn products, and by products become too costly to purchase for the majority of the worlds population.

Nonsense.

 

[paddoboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What media do you prefer Schmelzer...The Russian media?
And please cut the conspiracy crap.

 

[iceaura]

As usual, what you write about my presumptions is wrong. I presume that some amount of warming gives positive effects in the long run

Those aren't the presumptions at issue. Nobody cares what you think will happen hundreds of years from now, and that is not your objection to the current AGW reports.
You explicitly presume that AGW will bring significant positive effects that counter-balance the predicted bad effects the media is covering now - that is, on the same time scale as the predicted disasters, and so proper subjects of current news reports and media coverage.
That is your argument for media conspiracy and organized lying - that these incoming positive effects are not reported as news, but instead only bad effects are reported (and exaggerated, etc), thereby misleading people as to the severity of the incoming disasters.

My claim is that the mass media do not report them to the public.

You have been trying to make claims about AGW itself, not just its media coverage.

You have been citing your evaluations of the media coverage (involving many more silly claims, of course, but to the purpose) as evidence for your ignorant claims about AGW.

Your claims about AGW itself are the focus of my replies. Your presumptions about the incoming effects of AGW, the predictions of the IPCC, the reports of the researchers, etc, are what I am disparaging, describing as "ignorant", and so forth.

That is: don't try to change the subject.

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

More ignorance.
The climate under the influence of AGW is not predicted to "stabilize" until the CO2 boost and its effects stabilize - hundreds of years from now, given current trends. Until then, the catastrophic scenario you deny there is what the researchers have found to be the most likely scenario, the predicted scenario.

 

[iceaura]

Because if many farms break, so that the reduction in crop production becomes essential, the price of the crops will raise, and the remaining farms will be fine. That's simple market economy

That is famine, and war.

 

[Schmelzer]

What media do you prefer Schmelzer...The Russian media?

I do not prefer mass media at all. I prefer internet sources. A lot of them are Russian, but there are also German and English sites

Those aren't the presumptions at issue. Nobody cares what you think will happen hundreds of years from now, and that is not your objection to the current AGW reports.

This is what I claim, so if nobody cares, why do you answer at all?

You explicitly presume that AGW will bring significant positive effects that counter-balance the predicted bad effects the media is covering now - that is, on the same time scale as the predicted disasters, and so proper subjects of current news reports and media coverage.

No. Stop lying.

That is your argument for media conspiracy and organized lying - that these incoming positive effects are not reported as news, but instead only bad effects are reported (and exaggerated, etc), thereby misleading people as to the severity of the incoming disasters.

Nonsense. The reports about actual weather events (where, usually without base, "climate change" is blamed in a way comparable to blaming the Russians in politics) is part of the organization of hysteria, but this is not what I object to. I'm talking about what the mass media tell us about what will happen in future.

You have been trying to make claims about AGW itself, not just its media coverage.

Feel free to quote them and to describe them correctly. Don't lie about them.

You have been citing your evaluations of the media coverage (involving many more silly claims, of course, but to the purpose) as evidence for your ignorant claims about AGW.

Nonsense. Feel free to quote something. Don't lie.

The climate under the influence of AGW is not predicted to "stabilize" until the CO2 boost and its effects stabilize - hundreds of years from now, given current trends. Until then, the catastrophic scenario you deny there is what the researchers have found to be the most likely scenario, the predicted scenario.

No. The researchers have found a lot of things, but the "catastrophic scenario" is what is created out of this by alarmists.

The scenario which is reasonable to expect is that what we will have during the next hundreds of years will be similar to what we have now - given that according to AGW the climate is already actually changing. Up to now, I have not seen anything catastrophic.

 

[billvon]

No, it is simply irrelevant for a climate change discussion

Climate change causes extinctions - and therefore extinctions are irrelevant in a discussion of the risks of climate change?

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

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

The optimal temperature for the life that is living right now is the temperature they evolved to live in. Simple. Keeping the temperature the same is optimal. Slowly changing temperatures are a problem. The faster the temperature changes, the more trouble species will have adapting - and the more species that will go extinct.

Farmers are troubled by weather uncertainty. That's a different thing.

Of course. We are talking about climate (temperature and precipitation trends over decades) not weather (temperature and precipitation this month or this year.)

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

If farmers have trouble with volatility (which they do) then increasing the volatility of some events will hurt farmers.

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

Well, as predictable as they are now. However, those predictable patterns will be worse for farmers.

The shelves will be full all the time. In the worst case, the things on the shelves may be more expensive.

Thus condemning millions to death from famine. But not your problem as long as you can get your hamburgers, eh?

 

[paddoboy]

I do not prefer mass media at all. I prefer internet sources. A lot of them are Russian, but there are also German and English sites
.

Jesus Christ almighty!!! Are you serious? What do you believe the Internet reflects? The Internet is the vehicle of the mass media!!
The Internet is full of nonsensical claims, and people and media posting/advertising extreme situations/events etc, that just happens to support their personal agendas or political opinions, just as you are so apt at doing.
While I do use the Internet obviously, I'm aware and always attempt to quote/post reputable professional opinions and evidence supporting a particular concept.
This of course includes forums, and even scientific forums, as they are obviously open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, to push and/or promote whatever nonsensical agenda that he or she chooses...just as you do here. Elsewhere your opinions with their twists and misinterpretations on professionaly recognised subjects, would be quickly curtailed and shut down unless you were supplying real empirical evidence and not just your own personal politically biased opinion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe, but this will never lead to serious problems. Because if many farms break, so that the reduction in crop production becomes essential, the price of the crops will raise, and the remaining farms will be fine. That's simple market economy.

Assuming that supply is in excess of demand, but alas an empty shelf can sell for what ever you want but it is still empty...
A collapse in agriculture leads to the collapse of the market economy. Money will be worthless. Localized battering will become the main supply.

 

[iceaura]

This is what I claim, so if nobody cares, why do you answer at all?

You make claims about AGW itself, not just the mass media coverage of it.

You make claims about the effects of AGW over the next few hundred years - you claim they will not be disasters, that there will be positive effects, that the mass media is not reporting them honestly, and so forth.

You parrot US Republican Party propaganda about AGW, including denial of its likely incoming effects.

And I post flat contradictions of your nonsense, because I have seen what happens when Republican Party propaganda dominates public discussion without contradiction. As long as you continue to parrot Republican Party media feeds on these English language forums, somebody has to wander out there and point out that you are posting the same ignorant bs about AGW that the US Republican Party media feed is promulgating - same vocabulary, same arguments, same all.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Global food security - Climate crisis.
Interesting article and research info:
https://www.wfp.org/climate-change/climate-impacts
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/food-insecurity-index/
So many people rely on humanitarian food charity, which of course would be the first thing to stop when the donor nations suffer their own food insecurity. UN supported refugee camps etc. would face severe hardship for example.

 

[Schmelzer]

Climate change causes extinctions - and therefore extinctions are irrelevant in a discussion of the risks of climate change?

Once they have other causes, namely "a result of human activity.", yes, they are irrelevant.

The optimal temperature for the life that is living right now is the temperature they evolved to live in. Simple.

Except that this is a very large range, so that it gives essentially no information.

Keeping the temperature the same is optimal. Slowly changing temperatures are a problem. The faster the temperature changes, the more trouble species will have adapting - and the more species that will go extinct.

As long as the temperature within that very large range, slowly changing temperatures are unproblematic too.

If farmers have trouble with volatility (which they do) then increasing the volatility of some events will hurt farmers.
... Well, as predictable as they are now. However, those predictable patterns will be worse for farmers.

Yes, more volatility hurts. But other aspects may help farmers. More CO2 leads to better plant growth, especially in arid regions, higher temperatures increase the part of the year when agriculture is possible, more rain in the average is helpful too. So, the overall result is not that obvious.

Thus condemning millions to death from famine. But not your problem as long as you can get your hamburgers, eh?

No. For leading to death of millions from famine, the raise would have to be extraordinary. And there is no reason to believe this. As explained, crop failures because of the weather will be local, the price of the crops is, instead, global in a global world.

What do you believe the Internet reflects? The Internet is the vehicle of the mass media!!

Some part of it is. So what? There are, fortunately, other parts. Moreover, it is always better to have the propaganda from different sides, instead of only the propaganda of one side.

The Internet is full of nonsensical claims, and people and media posting/advertising extreme situations/events etc, that just happens to support their personal agendas or political opinions, just as you are so apt at doing.

So what? The same holds for the mass media too. Except that they are much more concentrated and post the same nonsense supporting the personal agendas of the media moguls.

While I do use the Internet obviously, I'm aware and always attempt to quote/post reputable professional opinions and evidence supporting a particular concept.

We have seen your "reputable professional" sourses here.

 

[paddoboy]

Some part of it is. So what? There are, fortunately, other parts. Moreover, it is always better to have the propaganda from different sides, instead of only the propaganda of one side.

So what? The same holds for the mass media too. Except that they are much more concentrated and post the same nonsense supporting the personal agendas of the media moguls.

Typical Schmelzer skirting the issue as usual. You inferred that the Internet was separate from the media, and after viewing and listening to your own personal agenda for so long now, yes, I certainly prefer the agenda of the media moguls over yours.

We have seen your "reputable professional" sourses here.

My professional reputable links certainly trump your own self gratuitous web site, and your opinionated "Fuck you, I'm alright Jack" view of climate change.

 

[billvon]

Except that this is a very large range, so that it gives essentially no information.

You didn't understand what I posted, did you.

As long as the temperature within that very large range . . .

Uh - no. Plenty of organisms can live in 33F seawater. Shall we put you in such water for a few hours, to see how you fare? After all, life survives just fine at those temperatures.

slowly changing temperatures are unproblematic too.

Yes. Just as rapidly changing temperatures are not. We are now seeing a historically rapid temperature change.

Yes, more volatility hurts. But other aspects may help farmers. More CO2 leads to better plant growth, especially in arid regions, higher temperatures increase the part of the year when agriculture is possible, more rain in the average is helpful too. So, the overall result is not that obvious.

From Farmland.org:

Extreme weather will cause more frequent droughts and flooding, alter growing seasons, and shift the timing and impact of pest and weed pressures. At a time when the global population is increasing—to an estimated nearly 10 billion by 2050—climate change threatens farmers’ ability to grow food in a productive and environmentally sustainable way.

I am going to go with them over someone like you, who can't even make a logical argument and has a clear political agenda.

No. For leading to death of millions from famine, the raise would have to be extraordinary.

It ALREADY does. Minor droughts (at least, droughts that would be minor to the US) already kill hundreds of thousands. From 2010-2012, a drought caused a famine that killed 250,000 in Somalia alone.

Some part of it is. So what? There are, fortunately, other parts. Moreover, it is always better to have the propaganda from different sides, instead of only the propaganda of one side.

That's where we differ. I prefer facts to propaganda.

 

[Schmelzer]

You make claims about AGW itself, not just the mass media coverage of it.

Feel free to answer these particular claims, instead of inventing them.

You make claims about the effects of AGW over the next few hundred years - you claim they will not be disasters, that there will be positive effects, that the mass media is not reporting them honestly, and so forth.

As usual, lies. I do not claim at all that there will not be any disasters. For some regions, climate change may be disastrous. I indeed claim that there will be some positive effects. But so what? There will be none of them? Some minutes ago your lie was that I claim scientific sources do not them. Invent at least a coherent version for your lies.

And I post flat contradictions of your nonsense, because I have seen what happens when Republican Party propaganda dominates public discussion without contradiction.

"Flat" contradiction meaning contradiction without any supporting evidence?

Ok, I acknowledge that the hope that people will evaluate arguments is naive. Your "flat" lies appear to be as efficient as observed already by Goebbels, all one has to do is to repeat the lies often enough.

Assuming that supply is in excess of demand, but alas an empty shelf can sell for what ever you want but it is still empty...
A collapse in agriculture leads to the collapse of the market economy. Money will be worthless. Localized battering will become the main supply.

Yes, that's in principle possible, but there is no base for assuming that this will happen. Say, Russia has stopped, countersanctions, the import of agriculture from Europe. Completely. They were leading in that market. Empty shelfes in Russia? No (except in some propaganda fantasies). Some increase in the prices? Yes, for some time. Today Russian agriculture has taken over the Russian market. Relevant time scale to create agriculture able to replace all the European imports out of essentially nothing, and starting to export what has been imported before? Five years, essentially nothing in comparison with climate change scales.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

My professional reputable links certainly trump your own self gratuitous web site, and your opinionated "Fuck you, I'm alright Jack" view of climate change.

throw another plastic log on the fire

 

[Schmelzer]

You didn't understand what I posted, did you.
Uh - no. Plenty of organisms can live in 33F seawater. Shall we put you in such water for a few hours, to see how you fare?

What would be the point? I have survived for years in quite different climate zones.

Yes. Just as rapidly changing temperatures are not. We are now seeing a historically rapid temperature change.

Depends on how large and how rapid.

From Farmland.org: I am going to go with them over someone like you

Nice quote of a popular position today, nothing else. I do not expect that anybody will change his position because of the arguments I write. (If somebody will, I will almost certainly not get information about this.)

It ALREADY does. Minor droughts (at least, droughts that would be minor to the US) already kill hundreds of thousands. From 2010-2012, a drought caused a famine that killed 250,000 in Somalia alone.

Such things have always happened. And, of course, such event have to be expected in countries where US has made an attempt to "democratize" it and then run away.

I prefer facts to propaganda.

Everybody does. But only those who learn to extract facts from propaganda have a chance to find the facts.

And such extraction is much easier if you have propaganda sources from several sides. The sheeple, instead, simply think that the mass media of the country they live in gives them facts.

 

[paddoboy]

Nice quote of a popular position today, nothing else. I do not expect that anybody will change his position because of the arguments I write. (If somebody will, I will almost certainly not get information about this.)

And why would anyone of sound mind, change their position from that which is supported undeniably by the greater amount of evidence, to follow and agree with someone who flouts plenty of flowery rhetoric and no substance.
You need to think over what I educated you on before Schmelzer...Even if any doubt existed, we are obliged to err on the side of caution......unless of course one prefers to hang onto the Stuff you Jack, I'm alright attitude you have so proudly displayed.

And such extraction is much easier if you have propaganda sources from several sides. The sheeple, instead, simply think that the mass media of the country they live in gives them facts.

It's funny though, it isn't the mass media pushing for action against climate change [at least not in my country] and in many cases, it isn't the government either [again as per my country] it is of course the accounts and evidence from reputable scientists, as to the dangers of human induced climate change and the actions needed to slow that down.

"This is now clearly a global problem, the absolute consensus, the absolute, is that human action is leading to a rise in global temperatures"
Brian Cox:

 

[sculptor]

...
You need to think ... :

From your video
"Highest on record" repeated several times
You need to think
When did these records start?
Do we have any good records before the end of the "little ice age"?
Do we have any good records before the beginning of the "little ice age"?
"The little ice age" has been said to have ended in 1870
and global temperature records began circa 1850-1880
before that:
What we do have is derived from proxies, which require interpretation.
and
Proxy data indicate that the holocene climate optimum happened several centuries to millennia ago.

but, but, but
The records show.............................................................................................instrument bias

 

[RainbowSingularity]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/03/...or-fired-amazon-deforestation-intl/index.html

The fight for Brazil's Amazon 18:10
(CNN)Brazil has fired the head of a government agency that found a steep rise in deforestation in the Amazon, following a public spat with far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.

Ricardo Galvão, the director of Brazil's National Space and Research Institute (INPE), said he was terminated on Friday after defending satellite data that showed deforestation was 88% higher in June compared to a year ago.
Galvão said in a video statement on Facebook that the agency let him go after a meeting with Brazil's Minister of Science, Technology, Innovation and Communications, Marcos Pontes.
He added that the scientific institute would continue to operate and it would now be up to Pontes to decide on his successor. An advisor to Pontes confirmed Galvão's comments to state news agency Agencia Brasil.

 

[sculptor]

meanwhile
The Austrian timber company Schweighofer has been active in
sponsoring illegal logging in Romania's Carpathian Mountains' vast tracts of virgin forest, home to almost half of Europe's wild population of brown bears, wolves and lynx.

.................................
If the earth is GOD, then for God's sake plant a tree for every year you are alive---more would be better. (my average is over 25/year)
After planting, nurture them for the first few years.