Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by paddoboy, Jul 29, 2019.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    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.
    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.
    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 they seem useful to politics, there would be. Hysterics can be generated out of nothing.
    Feel free to play with words.
    Nonsense.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What media do you prefer Schmelzer...The Russian media?
    And please cut the conspiracy crap.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That is famine, and war.
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    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
    This is what I claim, so if nobody cares, why do you answer at all?
    No. Stop lying.
    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.
    Feel free to quote them and to describe them correctly. Don't lie about them.
    Nonsense. Feel free to quote something. Don't lie.
    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.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,600
    Climate change causes extinctions - and therefore extinctions are irrelevant in a discussion of the risks of climate change?

    Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
    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.
    Of course. We are talking about climate (temperature and precipitation trends over decades) not weather (temperature and precipitation this month or this year.)
    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.
    Thus condemning millions to death from famine. But not your problem as long as you can get your hamburgers, eh?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.
     
    Beer w/Straw likes this.
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    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.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
  14. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Once they have other causes, namely "a result of human activity.", yes, they are irrelevant.
    Except that this is a very large range, so that it gives essentially no information.
    As long as the temperature within that very large range, slowly changing temperatures are unproblematic too.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    We have seen your "reputable professional" sourses here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    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.
    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.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,600
    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? After all, life survives just fine at those temperatures.
    Yes. Just as rapidly changing temperatures are not. We are now seeing a historically rapid temperature change.
    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.
    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.
    That's where we differ. I prefer facts to propaganda.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Feel free to answer these particular claims, instead of inventing them.
    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.
    "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.

    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.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    throw another plastic log on the fire
     
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    What would be the point? I have survived for years in quite different climate zones.
    Depends on how large and how rapid.
    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.)
    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.
    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.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    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.
    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:
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    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
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/03/...or-fired-amazon-deforestation-intl/index.html
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    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.
     

Share This Page