Human Induced Climate Change is Real:

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

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but, as re iceaura, Professor Cox should have known that the proxy records indicate a much higher previous holocene temperature, and higher sea levels than today, and yet, he only referenced the thermometer records.

    Long ago, when reading about propaganda, one of the propagandists remarked that the most effective lie(propaganda) was a partial truth. And, that is precisely what Brian Cox's rhetoric was all about.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's your baseless and contrived opinion. I prefer the scientifically verified alternative and that pushed by Professor Cox.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    How interesting.
    The thread topic, though - - - -
    ? Not by me - I said nothing about that, and if I had would have said the opposite - all your attempts to hide AGW behind the Holocene, or the Eocene, or any other such era, are bullshit.

    And that's your second consecutive misrepresentation of my posting. That's a habit a lot of AGW deniers pick up. Any idea why?

    Meanwhile: Sounds like he wanted to talk about the temperature regime, rather than that other stuff.
    Why does that make his video "propaganda"?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    To each his/her own.............

    IMHO Climate science is a serious and important science, and we would all be better served by more unadulterated truth and less propaganda.
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Does this mean CO2 is a conspiracy?
    paddoboy likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And certainly less contrived, manipulated opinions and lies, as you have achieved.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    absolutely not!
    CO2 is a gas produced via combustion---combining Oxygen with carbon---and easily measured.
    Perspective matters
    look at "Ideal" CO2 levels from the perspective of the primary producers, and you have a different perspective.

    Look at what the biome was like during the holocene climate(temperature) optimum and you have a different perspective.

    We simply do not know enough to come up with an ideal climate, nor atmospheric CO2 level-----------and, assuming that we do is more dangerous than doing nothing
    Plant a tree----for every year that you are alive on this earth. (10 would be better)
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    [QUOTE="sculptor, post: 3593674, member: 270768"We simply do not know enough to come up with an ideal climate, nor atmospheric CO2 level[/QUOTE]
    We certainly know what the ideal climate and CO2 levels for life on this Earth as it exists now - and that is stasis. (Unless you think mass extinctions are "ideal.")
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    We certainly know what the ideal climate and CO2 levels for life on this Earth as it exists now - and that is stasis. (Unless you think mass extinctions are "ideal.")[/QUOTE]
    Yeh, good luck with that
    (Not in this holocene)
    The only constant is change.
    How can the center hold when there are no edges?
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You asked what the ideal was. That is stasis. Glad you agree.

    Next best is very gradual changes. Worst is what we have now - historically rapid changes.
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    MIS 11 ?
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You have a bullshit perspective.
    Nobody is assuming any such thing, except a body of AGW deniers who have introduced the bullshit concept of an "ideal" temperature etc to deflect public discussion from the likely disaster that is AGW.

    And very little is more dangerous than continuing to do what we are doing - the idea of "doing nothing" is of course more propaganda bs: the discussion is about doing differently.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    You're too obvious ice
    whenever you ain't got a leg to stand on you resort to a personal attack.
    kinda like a "tell" in poker
    ad hominem attacks are your tell
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Fine. Means, they are not as stupid as you try to present them.
    Your whole argumentation (as far as there is argumentation) relies on some exceptions, which may give some, usually local, effects opposite to what one would expect in the average. To meet such exceptions, one possibility is to introduce exceptions in the other direction too.
    And usually after such a heavy rain one sees the desert becoming green some short time.
    Of course, with one torrent every five years a desert remains a desert. But a climate change means that the torrents become more regular. And then plants which can live with such a situation will appear.

    The same problem all the time: Some accidental extremal events cause harm. Too hot, too cold, too rainy, too much rain, not enough rain, it doesn't matter - extremal events will be harmful to what is there, because what is there is adapted to the actual climate, which is something different.

    But if they become regular events, as they will if the climate changes, then there will be an adaptation to the new conditions. What will appear after the adaptation is not what you see if you look at the extremal event, but what you see if you look at regions where these extremal events are the usual climate.

    No, the problem is that you make only empty claims, without providing any evidence for them. So, your claims change nothing. All they show is that you don't like the claims I make, for some political reasons, and therefore think that one has to claim that they are all false.

    Of course, maybe there are enough sheeple who believe that you somehow know what scientists have found, and are unable to ask themselves why you don't post the evidence for your claims if you have it.

    Iceaura obviously hates the very idea of an ideal temperature. Because it quite obviously does not help alarmism. The answer to the question where would be the optimal temperature and optimal precipitation is quite obvious, it is higher than the actual one. So, until these optimal levels have been reached, the only problem with changing climate is the adaptation. But this is hardly enough for alarmists, given that they are weak in this field too: Even if climate change may be fast in comparison with climate changes in the past, this is not what we have to compare with. We have to compare it with the time scales we rebuild our infrastructure anyway. If all we have to do is to rebuild in another way what anyway requires rebuilding, the additional costs would be minimal.

    So, the only chance of the alarmists is to distort the discussion. The very idea of ideal temperature, precipitation, and CO2 content is already dangerous enough for them and has to be avoided completely. And the temp of climate change should be compared only with climate changes in the past.

    There are, of course, things one can do. Like investing in nuclear fusion - if this would work in some, say, 50 years or so, there would be no longer any need for burning something to gain energy. Up to this time, one could improve usual nuclear power. This would lead to an economy of oil, gas and so on, which would be useful even if AGW appears completely harmless - simply because there are many other useful applications for these commodities. For the same reasons, some amount of investment into "green energy" would be not unreasonable too.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They are false. All of them, as far as I can remember - I don't think you have posted a single accurate claim about AGW.
    I have never presented them as stupid - the opposite: They are very clever, the best propagandists in the world.
    I have posted nothing of the kind - no such "exceptions", no such argument.

    What I've been posting is that the AGW research and findings deal with your "averages", explicitly. I point to no "exceptions", but rather the body of that research and those findings. They conflict with your posting. You are posting claims directly in conflict with the scientific research and findings concerning AGW.
    Again we see the wingnut ascription of "hatred", as on Fox TV - as long noted, even your vocabulary is identical to the US Republican Party propaganda feed on almost every issue.

    There is no such thing as an "ideal temperature" of this planet. That is bullshit, invented by the clever to make fools of the ignorant for political advantage.
    AGW has nothing to do with ideal temperatures - it has to do with the effects of the anthropogenic CO2 boost on global and local climate, physical reality, regardless of anyone's preferences or "ideals".
    That has nothing to do with AGW.
    Plus, it's stupid - not just false.
    It's the local distribution of temperature and precipitation - not its global average or "level"- that makes it good or bad in the first place.
    Except for the silly ass notion that we are headed for some kind of "optimal levels", where we will remain for some reason, spot on.
    So say the findings of the AGW researchers - we face hundreds of years of continual change and disaster, possibly followed by a new stable climate regime we may or may not be able to adapt to. The best hope would be to slow the changes down - give us a better chance of handling the disasters.

    Adaptation is indeed the problem we face. The rapidity of AGW makes adaptation difficult.

    Because there is no way to control the effects of AGW. AGW is going to do what it does - if you want to know what that is likely to be, so that you can adapt, your best bet is to consult the researchers and their findings and their analyses.
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The usual "your claims are false" bs without any evidence disposed of.
    It is easy to define it. The average temperature where, given the actual technical possibilities, the greatest number of humans can survive on Earth. The costs of adaptation are not considered, these costs have to be considered separately. This definition is a quite straightforward, reasonable, and neutral definition, quite independent of anyone's ideals.

    A triviality, but irrelevant. Because whatever the local distributions for a given average temperature, one can compute how many people could live from the food produced in all those localities and sum this up.
    As usual, if you name something silly and attribute it to me, it is a lie. I argue that the optimal temperature and precipitation is higher than today. This is quite simple, you know the argument. So, some time warming will move us toward the optimum. There is a possibility that it goes beyond the optimum, I have never denied or ignored this possibility, and made proposals what can be done if the temperature becomes higher than the optimum.

    But, of course, to find out if some climate prediction predicts warming beyond the optimal level or not, one has to know at least what is the optimal one. Those who don't but nonetheless cry wolf disqualify themselves as alarmists.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You may well live in Canada, and feel that having it be warmer is a good thing. That's fine.

    But for the world as a whole it is quite simple. Rapid temperature changes cause mass extinctions, every time. So the optimal temperature is the temperature that the biosphere has adapted to over the past few million years. If you want to change it, there will be mass extinctions, period - even if you like things warmer.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's not a personal attack - the post you quoted. You can't tell the difference?
    And three of the legs it stands on are as solid as they come - published theory, published research, and peer-reviewed analyses.
    There is also observation, accurate prediction, and recorded history. We're up to six legs now - standing is not difficult.
    And all this not only of AGW, but of Republican propaganda efforts and media feeds. The comparison is public.

    My post at issue was simply a verifiably accurate description of any perspective on global climate change that includes the familiar and obviously propaganda derived notion of an "ideal temperature" in any context relevant to AGW. It's bullshit, and it came from the familiar AGW denial sources, years ago.

    What personal characteristics may motivate or lie behind such posting now - years after exposure and rebuttal - were not mentioned or addressed.

    Apparently lots of fine people are parroting dumbass Republican propaganda bs these days, and trying to smear anyone who describes dumbass Republican propaganda bs as dumbass Republican propaganda bs as "liars" and "extremists" and "one-sided" and so forth. Seems an odd behavior of fine people, but overall not impossible.

    Look: You posted contrived bullshit from a known and familiar source. I don't say why, I don't speculate about your motives or agenda or character in that post. I deal with the post itself, directly.
    (In my estimation, coming out of the closet like that marks an improvement in your personal integrity as presented here, being an open admission of stance and agenda compared with the slimy deceptions of your former innuendo-laden irrelevancies you posted under the cover of references to honest research.)

    Ground truth: There is no such thing as an ideal global average temperature independent of distribution in time and over geography, there is no scientific basis for talking about any such thing, and the role of that "concept" in rightwing AGW denial is and has been flagrantly obvious for years now.
    - - - - -
    "Ad hominem attacks"? Bizarre.
    The odd and characteristically specific illiteracy common to the posters of Republican bs is a topic in itself. For example: You guys have never managed to figure out what "ad hominem" means, or how to use the term, and your consistent illiterate misuse of that particular term characterizes your rhetoric. It's a wingnut field mark.

    And speaking of "tells", that's one I have pointed out to you and your crowd several times. You apparently (look at the evidence of that recent post, years later) can't do anything about it - any idea why? (hint: look at your sources).
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And the sum will vary depending on that distribution, so that almost any global average temperature can be jiggered to produce any given total human population, depending on which of its many possible distribution regimes is assumed to be the long term stable one (such as one produced by, for example, the collapse of industrial human civilization and its CO2 boost under the stresses of AGW).
    There is no such thing.
    Distribution, not "average", will likely govern human population densities in the future as in the past.
    It's an empty and ignorant SF fantasy: there is no such thing in reality, and the concept does not make sense even in abstract.
    Anyone pretending to calculate it is dealing in woo.
    Not according to the research of the past fifty years.
    For example: the research indicates that under AGW the distribution of rain and the distribution of temperatures are both and separately moving farther from any available human adaptation that preserves the current population, and are likely to continue doing so.
    You declared that, without visible argument - that's silly, and I attribute it to you because you posted it.
    Meanwhile, you also declared that AGW is approaching such an optimal level and can "reach" it. That's silly, and I attributed it to you because you posted it.
    Nope. The most likely effects of AGW as currently predicted from real life data and analyses are largely and predominantly and on "average" disasters of various kinds, due to the rapid change and scale in the distributions of various key features such as temperature and precipitation, and that is true of every global average temperature AGW forces the global climate to reach. Since that is true of every such "average" temperature, it is true of whatever your silly speculations have come up with as "optimal".

    According to the research and analyses, AGW will not produce an "optimal level" of anything - it will produce centuries of rapid, damaging, harmful, continual, and potentially catastrophic climate change on a global scale.

Share This Page