Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

[iceaura]

Proxy data indicate that the holocene climate optimum happened several centuries to millennia ago.

So?
The discussion topic was AGW. The Holocene climate "optimum" (a vague term, seems to mean warmest daytime summer atmosphere) is not part of AGW.

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

Which has been debated and discussed and investigated quite thoroughly by the pros, and has been incorporated into the predictions and findings and so forth.

So we can move on, when discussing AGW and its likely effects.
- - - - -

Depends on how large and how rapid.

Which is part of the research findings and AGW predictions etc - that stuff you refuse to read.
Very large, and very rapid - far more rapid than anything in the global record except very large meteor strike, and larger than anything except global disasters of the past.

That's where the bad effects of AGW are likely to come from, remember? That is also the major factor in the lack of positive effects - remember?

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.

What the people who do the research and pay attention to facts and know what they are talking about say is that the overall result of AGW is most likely to be a series of disasters on a scale that current human civilization cannot handle easily.

Why do you think they are wrong? You haven't addressed this matter.

Your posts consist of asserted falsehoods, see. More CO2 does not necessarily lead to "better" plant growth. Higher temperatures do not necessarily lengthen the growing season. More rain is not necessarily helpful - and in the case of AGW is predicted to be damaging, by the researchers who study such things. There's a thread about that.

In other words: Nothing you say about these matters is accurate. Furthermore, as anyone familiar with both can see, your posting is essentially identical to parrot versions of US Republican Party media feeds - right down to the specific vocabulary (sheeple, etc).

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

Which requires a basic knowledge of reality - otherwise, one has no way of even identifying propaganda, let alone "extracting facts" from it.

You, for example, have no chance. You have no knowledge of the physical reality involved in AGW.

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.

Not necessarily. You are a sheeple, and that's not how you were played.
The marketing pros in the US know what they are doing. Your only defense would be to acquire information, and this you refuse to do.

 

[Schmelzer]

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

The question is why this ... posts such things in a reply to me, given that I have never questioned that human action is leading to a rise in global temperatures.

So?
Which is part of the research findings and AGW predictions etc - that stuff you refuse to read.

A lie. I have never refused to read any AGW research linked here. And what I read and what I don't read you simply don't know.

So?
Very large, and very rapid - far more rapid than anything in the global record except very large meteor strike, and larger than anything except global disasters of the past.

Fast may be in comparison with a typical climate change. But this is not what is relevant. What is relevant if it is fast in comparison with the ability of humans to adapt. This is a quite different time scale. To change crops, one year is sufficient, to adapt infrastructure essentially for free the usual timescale for the particular infrastructure is relevant, so a hundred years would be even slow.

That's where the bad effects of AGW are likely to come from, remember? That is also the major factor in the lack of positive effects - remember?

I have always accepted that the costs of adaptation are negative effects, no need to remember me what I write myself. The question is about how large these costs are.

What the people who do the research and pay attention to facts and know what they are talking about say is that the overall result of AGW is most likely to be a series of disasters on a scale that current human civilization cannot handle easily.

You claim so without providing evidence, thus, as usual, your claim will be ignored.

Why do you think they are wrong? You haven't addressed this matter.

I don't think they are wrong. You have not provided evidence for your alarmists fantasies, thus, this is nothing I have to care about.

Your posts consist of asserted falsehoods, see. More CO2 does not necessarily lead to "better" plant growth. Higher temperatures do not necessarily lengthen the growing season. More rain is not necessarily helpful - and in the case of AGW is predicted to be damaging, by the researchers who study such things. In other words: Nothing you say about these matters is accurate.

And therefore I have not written "necessarily". You cannot argue without lies? That some storms may be damaging is a triviality, that more rain will also come together with more storms is something I have never questioned, I see it myself looking out of the window that rains in the tropical zone are heavier than in Germany.

The same behavior all the time - distortion of what I claim (because you have no evidence against my claims, which are about averages) into meaningless extremal claims like "necessarily", and then beating the strawman. And even this strawman is beaten without even providing minimal evidence for this. (Which suggests that you don't have even evidence for this. Or know very well that in those papers I will find enough support for my claims.)

In other words: Nothing you say about what I claim is accurate.

The usual "you know nothing" and "Rep propaganda" bs disposed of.

 

[paddoboy]

The question is why this ... posts such things in a reply to me, given that I have never questioned that human action is leading to a rise in global temperatures.

Stop being so bloody obtuse schmelzer. There's far more to it then simply agreeing that human action is leading to a rise in global temperatures and then cunningly side stepping the issue.
We could just handle it in your own "stuff you I'm alright Jack" selfish way, or we could take certain action to help and delay such consequences. Thankfully, I believe that despite lack of media publications highlighting the issue, many now from the general populace seem to be taking some action themselves and pushing for government actions.

 

[sculptor]

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

silver lining(for the archaeologist in me)

Modern deforestation has allowed the discovery of more than 450 of these large geometrical geoglyphs.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-hundreds-ancient-earthworks-built-amazon.html

 

[iceaura]

Fast may be in comparison with a typical climate change

Sure.
But that's not the problem, as those who have a basic knowledge of the physical realities and research findings know, and you don't.
The problem is that fast also means in comparison with what living beings can adjust to, given the realities of their situations - in comparison with the stuff you don't know.
Same with "large" - it's large in comparison with what living things on the planet can handle, especially human beings (dependent as they are on civilization, agriculture, dense populations, etc). More stuff you don't know about.

That is what people who know what the research findings are mean when they refer to AGW. It's what AGW means, in the public discussion. That is what you are denying, every time you post such denials such as 'that will not be a big problem' and 'they can just plant different crops' and 'what about the good news - nobody is reporting the positive effects',
and denials like this bullshit:

That some storms may be damaging is a triviality, that more rain will also come together with more storms is something I have never questioned,

When you refer to the discovered and established likelihood of the extra rain from AGW being concentrated in torrential storms, rather than averaged out over the seasons (as "more storms" or the like), as "trivial", you are posting denialist cant.
What they found is that the extra rain already established as almost inevitable from AGW is probably - most likely - not trivial, but disastrous to human beings. So when you claim it is trivial, you are denying their findings. See how that works?

I don't think they are wrong.

You post denials of their findings. Do you think your posts are right?

And therefore I have not written "necessarily".

You claimed, as fact, that more rain from AGW was and would be good for agriculture on average. You even argued for it. If you have changed your mind, you can make that clear by posting your corrected claim.

The same behavior all the time - distortion of what I claim (because you have no evidence against my claims, which are about averages) into meaningless extremal claims like "necessarily", and then beating the strawman.

Every one of the responses you have received fully recognizes that you are posting about "averages", and most address that specific aspect of your posts.
Like this:

What the people who do the research and pay attention to facts and know what they are talking about say is that the overall result of AGW is most likely to be a series of disasters on a scale that current human civilization cannot handle easily.

See the words "overall result"? That directly addresses your claims of "average" benefit. All other responses to your bs likewise.

You seem to have overlooked one of the factors involved in parroting Republican Party propaganda feeds: they are familiar to your US readership. You are posting stuff we've seen debunked decades ago, in some cases (such as the attempt to talk about "optimum" climate). These deflections and denials of yours are repeat performances of a play that has been through town already.

You might do better to adopt the wariness of those who have been caught out before - look at Sculptor's posts, for example, and attend to how he avoids making declarative statements and claims of fact about the physical realities of AGW or their likely effects. That's how the latest wave of AGW denial operates - and it works better, in the informed world, than posting direct falsehoods anyone can check for themselves.

 

[Schmelzer]

Iceaura writes the usual claims without even a single bit of evidence:

The problem is that fast also means in comparison with what living beings can adjust to, given the realities of their situations - in comparison with the stuff you don't know.
Same with "large" - it's large in comparison with what living things on the planet can handle, especially human beings (dependent as they are on civilization, agriculture, dense populations, etc).

But an interesting new element is that we learn that AGW means something different than "Anthropogenic Global Warming". It means whatever iceaura and other alarmists feels free to believe. That's, from a logical point of view, already clear - last but not least, I'm named AGW denier even if I have never expressed doubt that there is some global warming and it is anthropogenic. So, now we hear it explicitly that AGW is Orwellian newspeak:

That is what people who know what the research findings are mean when they refer to AGW. It's what AGW means, in the public discussion.

This seems to be the new Party Line, given that some other guy (who has yet to learn how to behave in a civilized discussion) posts the same newspeak defense:

Stop being so bloody obtuse schmelzer. There's far more to it then simply agreeing that human action is leading to a rise in global temperatures and then cunningly side stepping the issue.

The issue I care about is alarmism in the media. Not AGW, not what is found by scientists. What scientists have found, and what alarmists and mass media write about this, are very different things. It is not an accident that iceaura simply refuses to post any links to scientific papers.
Two quotes - two lies:

and 'they can just plant different crops' and 'what about the good news - nobody is reporting the positive effects',

If I criticize research which computes the harm caused by climate change implicitly assuming that not even crops will be changed, it does in no way follow that "just" planting different crops solves all problems. And - the repetition, thus, clearly intentional - I do not claim that nobody is reporting the positive effects, but that the mass media don't.

When you refer to the discovered and established likelihood of the extra rain from AGW being concentrated in torrential storms, rather than averaged out over the seasons (as "more storms" or the like), as "trivial", you are posting denialist cant.

Another claim, another lie. I have never made claims about how the parts of the additional rain will be distributed. I simply make claims about the average rain, which will be more, and that this will be good even if it will be more concentrated. BTW, link please to some scientific paper which establishes this claim about "concentrated in torrential storms", please with this wording, because this sounds like typical alarmist, but not like scientific, language.

What they found is that the extra rain already established as almost inevitable from AGW is probably - most likely - not trivial, but disastrous to human beings. So when you claim it is trivial, you are denying their findings. See how that works?

I simply deny that how the media present this has something to do with what the scientists have really found. And use some common sense. Everybody can visit the tropes in the rainy season to compare these rains with those in Europe/US. They are indeed heavier. But this illustration is also, with a little bit common sense, sufficient to estimate the scale of the effect: If there will be temperatures in Europe like in the tropes, then there will be heavy rains like in the tropes and rain in the average like in the tropes.

You claimed, as fact, that more rain from AGW was and would be good for agriculture on average. You even argued for it. If you have changed your mind, you can make that clear by posting your corrected claim.

No reason to correct anything. On average, it will be good. In particular circumstances, there may be exceptions, no doubt. You have not presented even a single scientific paper which is in conflict with this claim. So, what could cause me to change this position? Some fantasy claims of an alarmist?

Every one of the responses you have received fully recognizes that you are posting about "averages", and most address that specific aspect of your posts.
Like this:
See the words "overall result"? That directly addresses your claims of "average" benefit.

BTW, you obviously don't read my answers. Fantasy claims of an alarmist count as nothing. What counts are references to relevant scientific papers. So, your claims, once not supported by any evidence, are simply nothing. Support your claims with links, I will look at them and comment them. What some alarmist "directly addresses", without presenting evidence, has been, should be, and will be ignored.

You are posting stuff we've seen debunked decades ago, in some cases (such as the attempt to talk about "optimum" climate).

That's simple mathematics. There are temperatures to low for humans to survive, and temperatures to high for humans to survive. Somewhere between there has to be a temperature which is optimal, so that the number of people able to survive on Earth is maximal (given a particular technology).

 

[paddoboy]

The issue I care about is alarmism in the media. Not AGW, not what is found by scientists. What scientists have found, and what alarmists and mass media write about this, are very different things.

It's actually the climate change deniers that appear hysterical with their views plastered all over the media and web. As per the moron that I remember compared climate change activists to Nazis...one of Trumps henchmen from memory.
And then the conspiracy claims pushed by similar climate denialists in the media. And similar opposition to anyone that dares call for action on climate change.
Again, if, and that's a big if, any doubt as to the potential seriousness of climate change results exists, we must and are obliged to err on the side of caution. You just seem to be pussy footing around the facts and making up your own questionable position on the matter.
Again, imo, the movement in the general populace now seem to be accepting that action is needed to address the matter.

 

[billvon]

But an interesting new element is that we learn that AGW means something different than "Anthropogenic Global Warming". It means whatever iceaura and other alarmists feels free to believe. That's, from a logical point of view, already clear - last but not least, I'm named AGW denier even if I have never expressed doubt that there is some global warming and it is anthropogenic.

Nope. AGW is anthropogenic global warming. It is one effect of anthropogenic changes (land use, water use, atmospheric alteration) that we have made to the Earth.

The issue I care about is alarmism in the media. Not AGW, not what is found by scientists. What scientists have found, and what alarmists and mass media write about this, are very different things.

Absolutely. It's also very different than what deniers claim.

Another claim, another lie. I have never made claims about how the parts of the additional rain will be distributed. I simply make claims about the average rain, which will be more, and that this will be good even if it will be more concentrated.

Perhaps tell that to ~50 people killed by flooding in the US so far in 2019. You could explain to their families how their deaths are good, and how you hope for more of them.

This is why deniers are so often not taken seriously - because they say asinine things like "well, it might rain more, and that is good, even if it's concentrated in floods!"

I simply deny that how the media present this has something to do with what the scientists have really found. And use some common sense. Everybody can visit the tropes in the rainy season to compare these rains with those in Europe/US. They are indeed heavier. But this illustration is also, with a little bit common sense, sufficient to estimate the scale of the effect: If there will be temperatures in Europe like in the tropes, then there will be heavy rains like in the tropes and rain in the average like in the tropes.

You are making unsubstantiated guesses and assumptions. It is ironic indeed that you complain about how the media gets science wrong - and then post crap like that.

That's simple mathematics. There are temperatures to low for humans to survive, and temperatures to high for humans to survive. Somewhere between there has to be a temperature which is optimal, so that the number of people able to survive on Earth is maximal (given a particular technology).

You really think that climate change will bring the earth to a more moderate overall temperature, rather than continuing to have diverse climactic ranges? You're nuts. No wonder you are so averse to the science of climate change.

 

[sculptor]

Holocene climate change
Climate change is real. Perhaps, climate change is the norm?
intro:
Warming of Earth and glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling at about 10,000 - 8500 BC known as the younger dryas The warming resumed by 8500 BC. The younger-dryas event is significant because it shows that even during an otherwise tranquil period (the current interglacial), rapid climate shifts can still occur.
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.
During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals, as evidenced by the Tassili N'Ajjer frescoes of Algeria
From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands and coastal areas that are still above sea level today.

A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD, although Global average temperature remained relatively warm until about 600 AD. From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
...
From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age.
During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 -2 degrees Celsius lower than today.
Extreme weather during this period might have played an important role in the genesis of the Black Death (bubonic plague).
The Little Ice Age was not continuously cold: the 13th-14th centuries were cold; followed by an interval of more favorable conditions; then a return of more severe weather mid 16th-mid 19th centuries.
During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

Perhaps, knowledge of why the climate fluctuated in the past could help set a procedure for addressing climate change going forward?
Or................................

If CO2 is a major contributor to warming, discounting that we are still warming from the "little ice age" wherein cold conditions led to the deaths of a considerable percent of the northern hemispheric populations, then we have many ways of addressing the levels, all we need is to start-----my way was planting trees---not everyone can do this---------suggestions?

 

[billvon]

Climate change is real. Perhaps, climate change is the norm?

It definitely happens. There are typically long periods of stability, punctuated by periods of climate change. These periods are also characterized by mass extinctions, typically depending on how fast the climate changes.

If CO2 is a major contributor to warming, discounting that we are still warming from the "little ice age" wherein cold conditions led to the deaths of a considerable percent of the northern hemispheric populations, then we have many ways of addressing the levels, all we need is to start-----my way was planting trees . . .

Sure, that's one thing that will work. It won't be sufficient, and won't work everywhere, but it will help.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Holocene climate change
Climate change is real. Perhaps, climate change is the norm?
intro:
Warming of Earth and glacial retreat began about 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC). The warming was shortly interrupted by a sudden cooling at about 10,000 - 8500 BC known as the younger dryas The warming resumed by 8500 BC. The younger-dryas event is significant because it shows that even during an otherwise tranquil period (the current interglacial), rapid climate shifts can still occur.
By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period either the Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Optimum.
During the climatic optimum many of the Earth's great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region. 6,000 years ago the Sahara was far more fertile than today and supported large herds of animals, as evidenced by the Tassili N'Ajjer frescoes of Algeria
From 3000 to 2000 BC a cooling trend occurred. This cooling caused large drops in sea level and the emergence of many islands and coastal areas that are still above sea level today.

A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 - 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels.

The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD, although Global average temperature remained relatively warm until about 600 AD. From 600-900 AD (The "Dark Ages"), global average temperatures were significantly colder than today. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.
...
From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age.
During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1 -2 degrees Celsius lower than today.
Extreme weather during this period might have played an important role in the genesis of the Black Death (bubonic plague).
The Little Ice Age was not continuously cold: the 13th-14th centuries were cold; followed by an interval of more favorable conditions; then a return of more severe weather mid 16th-mid 19th centuries.
During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25% of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

Perhaps, knowledge of why the climate fluctuated in the past could help set a procedure for addressing climate change going forward?
Or................................

If CO2 is a major contributor to warming, discounting that we are still warming from the "little ice age" wherein cold conditions led to the deaths of a considerable percent of the northern hemispheric populations, then we have many ways of addressing the levels, all we need is to start-----my way was planting trees---not everyone can do this---------suggestions?

And you said all that without mentioning CO2?

Or wait, you did.

 

[iceaura]

Climate change is real. Perhaps, climate change is the norm?

Of course it is.
And you can accept that everyone knows that and always has,
give up trying to hint or argue by innuendo,
and begin addressing the topic of AGW as it exists in the real world right now.

Perhaps, knowledge of why the climate fluctuated in the past could help set a procedure for addressing climate change going forward?

What a good idea!

Imagine if the alarmists had thought of doing that, before getting all bent out of shape over a little bit of extra CO2 in the air. Why, they could have set things up so the pros had spent the past fifty years investigating and researching and taking ice cores and lakebed cores and river outlet sediment cores and so forth and so on, undertaking months-long sea transects to gather data from the open ocean, undertaking years long paleontological excavations and samplings, publishing hundreds of papers in the many peer-reviewed journals, and so forth.

 

[sculptor]

Of course it is.
And you can accept that everyone knows that and always has,
give up trying to hint or argue by innuendo,
and begin addressing the topic of AGW as it exists in the real world right now.

What a good idea!

Imagine if the alarmists had thought of doing that, before getting all bent out of shape over a little bit of extra CO2 in the air. Why, they could have set things up so the pros had spent the past fifty years investigating and researching and taking ice cores and lakebed cores and river outlet sediment cores and so forth and so on, undertaking months-long sea transects to gather data from the open ocean, undertaking years long paleontological excavations and samplings, publishing hundreds of papers in the many peer-reviewed journals, and so forth.

What a pity that all that research doesn't seem to show up in the rhetoric of people like Prof. Brian Cox.
Maybe, he is more of a con than one of your "pros"?

 

[Schmelzer]

Nope. AGW is anthropogenic global warming. ... It's also very different than what deniers claim.

Yes. The deniers claim either that there is no global warming or that it is not anthropogenic. This is what makes sense to name "denier". In particular, it follows that I'm not a denier.

Perhaps tell that to ~50 people killed by flooding in the US so far in 2019. You could explain to their families how their deaths are good, and how you hope for more of them.

Ok, I will tell them that it would be much better if there would be no rain in the whole at all. Then there would have been no people killed by floods in the US, because nobody would live in that desert. At least I have not heard about people killed by floods following heavy rains in the Sahara? (And for the world peace this would be much better too.) I doubt they will agree with that, and will think that it is better that there is more rain in the average in the US than in the Sahara.

This is why deniers are so often not taken seriously - because they say asinine things like "well, it might rain more, and that is good, even if it's concentrated in floods!"

What is asinine is to deny this. Simply think about rains coming in the Sahara but only in form of extremely heavy rains, say, of 1 m in a day type. Will Sahara become more or less attractive for human live? Will the Sahara population grow or decrease?

You are making unsubstantiated guesses and assumptions. It is ironic indeed that you complain about how the media gets science wrong - and then post crap like that.

It would be helpful if you would at least claim (even if without any evidence like iceaura) which if my claims is in your opinion "crap" and what would be the correct description. The rains in the tropes are not heavier than in Europe? This is not visible to the visitor? Or if there would be temperatures in Europe like now in the tropes, the rains would be even much much more heavier than now in the tropes? If you mean the last, I would like to see some scientific paper giving evidence for this hypothesis.

You really think that climate change will bring the earth to a more moderate overall temperature, rather than continuing to have diverse climactic ranges? You're nuts. No wonder you are so averse to the science of climate change.

Learn to read before naming other people. I have made a claim about the average temperatures. Once there is some temperature, there is also some average temperature: $T = \int T(x.t) dx dt$. Then one can make simple statements about this average temperature. If T = -200, there will be no human life on Earth. Same for T = +500. At least with the actual techniques available for survival. Somewhere between there are temperatures where much more humans can survive on Earth. So, there will be also one where this number is maximal. Nothing in this consideration makes assumptions about how volatile is the climate for a given average temperature.

 

[iceaura]

What a pity that all that research doesn't seem to show up in the rhetoric of people like Prof. Brian Cox.
Maybe, he is more of a con than one of your "pros"?

Don't care.

It shows up in the journals, and the articles, and the reports. It has been showing up, and agreeing with subsequent events and realities, for decades now.

When the people who have been listening to the rhetoric of some guy are the same ones who pretend that AGW "alarmists" have been ignoring natural climate change, pretend that AGW researchers have not been using past climate changes to inform their understanding of AGW, and so forth, that guy does not come recommended.

 

[iceaura]

Yes. The deniers claim either that there is no global warming or that it is not anthropogenic

No, they don't. (They used to, but the media feed changed when the reality diverged too much)
They make claims identical to yours - same vocabulary and everything.

Simply think about rains coming in the Sahara but only in form of extremely heavy rains, say, of 1 m in a day type. Will Sahara become more or less attractive for human live? Will the Sahara population grow or decrease?

Why should we think about local stuff, when you are supposedly making claims about global "averages"?

btw: That is quite similar to the long time normal situation in the Sahara, and many deserts - it does get rain, but only in scattered torrents. You didn't know that?

Btw2: some high desert in South America recently had that exact experience - average rain increase but only in torrents - the net result was the death of most of the native plants and animals over wide areas, and a return to its former inhospitable normality - only deader.

I have made a claim about the average temperatures.

And average rainfall, and so forth.
Everybody knows that. They always have. You've been quoted many times.

Your claims are false, is the problem. They conflict with discovered and established physical reality, and they conflict with the findings of the AGW researchers for fifty years now.

 

[sculptor]

..., that guy does not come recommended.

That's good to know, and yet, paddoboy posted his video..................tsk, tsk...

 

[paddoboy]

That's good to know, and yet, paddoboy posted his video..................tsk, tsk...

If you had of watched the video, you would have noticed that he was simply pushing the research that had been done, and had had the professionaly reviewed papers and evidence detailing that research.............tsk, tsk...

 

[iceaura]

That's good to know, and yet, paddoboy posted his video.

Responded to your post, not his, as a more complete quote would have established. Don't watch videos, myself.

Do you have anything to post relevant to the thread? How about something accurate about that video you think is missing whatever?

 

[sculptor]

And you said all that without mentioning CO2?

Or wait, you did.

CO2
CO2
CO2
also known as plant food
The primary producers want us to create more CO2
The primary producers need us to produce more CO2
It's a symbiotic thing. Before the oxygen consuming CO2 producers came along, the dummy primary producers kept poisoning the atmosphere with their waste product(oxygen) which helped the wild fires rage and kill off the primary producers in their millions and billions-----------they needed our help----the amphibians and insects couldn't satisfy their needs, so to the age of reptiles----and then, we came along and the plants could feast on our waste product(CO2)..........

In greenhouse gardening, it is recommended that you do not allow CO2 levels to fall below 340 ppm, (much above assumed pre industrial levels)and for some plants, a level of 1100-1200 ppm is recommended-----------