Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

First, it is the very thesis of AGW that humankind has some control over the average temperature

No, it isn't.
One of the more strident warnings from the AGW researchers is that our current behavior may - a small but far too large probability - set off a positively reinforced runaway of some kind and duration, for example - that we are not in control of this situation, and once started some of the possibilities will be unstoppable. The next degree or two of rapid average temperature boost is out of our hands now, for another example - we can't stop it with our current means.

Which is what makes the question which temperature would be optimal interesting for human behavior and politically relevant

You can't make that meaningless stupidity relevant no matter what you assume.

The AGW proponents are, clearly, arguing that we should invest a large amount of money to make the temperature lower than it would be if we would care at all.

Another falsehood.

As already clarified, such action could be reasonable if the transition costs would be much higher than those proposed investments, even if the optimal temperature would be higher than now.

Bizarre and incoherent bs. You will never make sense until you drop that silly notion of an optimal temperature.

If you would be correct about this, and even in those regions which are now too cold AGW would create in the long range more harm, then the idea that they are too cold would be wrong, and this would be evidence for the thesis that the optimal temperature would be even lower than it is now.

By which posting you prove I was correct, and that idiocy is in fact your argument.

You are known to like arguments which pick out a small exception where the average is wrong, as if this would question the average.

I do no such thing. I may illustrate what's wrong with your ignorant presumptions by specific example, sometimes, especially if (as with the overheating destroying agriculture matter) you insist that I provide specific examples - no limitation of your error to those examples is indicated. Exactly the opposite is the case.

Doubt is legitimate in any case, even in cases where to doubt is absurd for those who have studied the literature.

Not your doubt. Your doubt is based on assumptions of bias, assumptions of fact, and assumptions of political agenda, which are not legitimate themselves and not legitimately employed in your assessments. Your assumptions are ignorant, and wrong. Your employment of them is mistaken. Doubt based on such an approach is a denial of established reality and sound estimation.

You are denying AGW, and your denial is absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

Some good news from iceaura: Nuclear winter theory is dead, AGW claims:

One of the more strident warnings from the AGW researchers is that our current behavior may - a small but far too large probability - set off a positively reinforced runaway of some kind and duration, for example - that we are not in control of this situation, and once started some of the possibilities will be unstoppable. The next degree or two of rapid average temperature boost is out of our hands now, for another example - we can't stop it with our current means.

That means, the theory of nuclear winter, which consists on a claim that some sort of human behavior which is in our power can lead to an equally catastrophic cooling, has been falsified. Let's hope hat the US does not use this to think about starting a Big Nuclear War, given that it would no longer endangering human survival in general.

Something worth to learn about totalitarian legitimacy of doubt:

Not your doubt. Your doubt is based on assumptions of bias, assumptions of fact, and assumptions of political agenda, which are not legitimate themselves and not legitimately employed in your assessments.

Not only doubt about Party line claims is evil. Identifying some political agenda behind the Party line is evil, assumptions about facts like about the optimal temperature is evil, there are illegitimate ways to employ facts (obviously those which lead to conclusions which contradict the Party line).

What remains are the usual "you are stupid" claims, none of this supported by any argument at all, simply bad words, that's all the "argumentation". Looks like the question about the optimal temperature is quite uncomfortable for iceaura. It remains to note what was not answered:

that the AGW warming is predicted to hit first, hardest, and most significantly, in the exact northern hemisphere places that are too cold.

You are known to like arguments which pick out a small exception where the average is wrong, as if this would question the average. Given that I always accepted the point that transition costs are negative, I may have ignored your argument because I have identified it as a transition effect. One of this was probably the reason why I have ignored and forgotten this "frequently" made argument. If this justification for ignorance is wrong, then repeat your argument, I would be interested.

I do no such thing. I may illustrate what's wrong with your ignorant presumptions by specific example, sometimes, especially if (as with the overheating destroying agriculture matter) you insist that I provide specific examples - no limitation of your error to those examples is indicated. Exactly the opposite is the case.

So, the argument itself, which I have asked to repeat so that I could see that it is neither about transition costs nor about an exception irrelevant for the average, was not given. That means, it was correct to ignore it.

 

[iceaura]

That means, the theory of nuclear winter, which consists on a claim that some sort of human behavior which is in our power can lead to an equally catastrophic cooling, has been falsified.

Now you are jumping sharks by twos and threes. Nuclear winter is of course yet another example of the inability of humans to control the consequences of their major screwups - you claimed control, you posted an example of inability to control.
Crashing a car by accident is not controlling a car.

Not only doubt about Party line claims is evil. Identifying some political agenda behind the Party line is evil, assumptions about facts like about the optimal temperature is evil, there are illegitimate ways to employ facts (obviously those which lead to conclusions which contradict the Party line).

You can try to hide behind strawman "evil" accusations, pretensions to be addressing some "Party line" you have invented, and other whining about being picked on for genuine idiocy like "optimal temperature", but you are still denying AGW, and your denial is still absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now you are jumping sharks by twos and threes. Nuclear winter is of course yet another example of the inability of humans to control the consequences of their major screwups - you claimed control, you posted an example of inability to control. Crashing a car by accident is not controlling a car.

In a nuclear war, one does not care about nuclear winter, but about killing the enemies. But nuclear winter means we can do things which decrease temperature, and we even know how to do it. So, it necessary, humankind would be able to do it also in controlled ways. Say, by finding some dangerous vulcanos, evacuating everybody around, then throwing some nuclear bombs on it to create an artificial eruption. Such things are known to decrease temperature. And this may be even useful, if after the artificial eruption the region may be safe for some time from natural eruptions.

That you give the concept of an optimal temperature names is not an argument, except for schoolboys.

 

[iceaura]

In a nuclear war, one does not care about nuclear winter, but about killing the enemies.

That's why only the crazy and ignorant both would even think about fighting one. Not even suicide bombers blow up their own families and comrades.

But nuclear winter means we can do things which decrease temperature, and we even know how to do it

We don't know how to control it. You needed control, remember?

So, it necessary, humankind would be able to do it also in controlled ways.

Nobody knows how, at the moment. Look at the range of predictions for AGW - and that is an incremental process we have decades of data on.

Say, by finding some dangerous vulcanos, evacuating everybody around, then throwing some nuclear bombs on it to create an artificial eruption.

And that is the AGW doubter's idea of a controlled remedy for the effects of the CO2 boost.

I didn't pull the word "absurd", for these denials, out of a hat at random.

That you give the concept of an optimal temperature names is not an argument, except for schoolboys

That you type the words "the optimal temperature" in front of your face and think you have conjured up a "concept", is not even an argument for schoolboys.

There is no such thing, ok? It makes no sense. Quit typing the words, you're only confusing yourself.

 

[Schmelzer]

We don't know how to control it. You needed control, remember?

Nice try, but wrong. You have introduced "control" into the discussion. I don't need it. I do not propose any human action regarding AGW. We have no control? Ok, fine with me. Then, stop all these politics related with climate change, this is anyway only loss of taxpayers money for things we cannot control.

We have means to influence global temperature, and in above directions. If not, AGW and nuclear winter would be lies. Do we have control? Some control we obviously have. The strength of the nuclear winter quite obviously depends on the number and power of nuclear bombs used, and AGW is claimed to depend on CO2 emissions. The direction of the influence is also clear - more CO2 means higher temperature, more nuclear explosions lower temperature, not?

So, what is the difference between the "less CO2 emissions" vs. the "some nuclear bombs" proposals for lowering temperature?

That you type the words "the optimal temperature" in front of your face and think you have conjured up a "concept", is not even an argument for schoolboys. There is no such thing, ok? It makes no sense.

That you don't like this simple concept does not make it meaningless or nonexistent.

The counterarguments you have given: It depends on criteria of what is optimal. No problem, because this dependence is hardly great. It is a range. Indeed, but so what. And some exercises in namecalling. That's all.

 

[iceaura]

Nice try, but wrong. You have introduced "control" into the discussion.

No, I didn't.

I don't need it. I do not propose any human action regarding AGW. We have no control? Ok, fine with me

You claimed we had control. I pointed out you were wrong. You countered with examples. I pointed out they were ridiculous - they were counter-examples.

That you don't like this simple concept does not make it meaningless or nonexistent.

But it is. There is no such thing.

The counterarguments you have given: It depends on criteria of what is optimal.

No, it doesn't. There are no criteria of "optimal" that will make "the optimal temperature" of the planet a meaningful term.

Look: all benefits of average temperature depend on a particular distribution in both time and space. Until you specify that distribution, there is no optimal temperature. For example: Hawaii has a very nice average temperature. But it has little seasonal or diurnal variation. Move that exact same average temperature to my town, with its 60C seasonal and 15C diurnal swings, and every above-ground mammal in my county would be dead at the end of the first summer. Also most of the plants and insects.

Whether one would go colder or warmer to get to an optimal average temperature for my town depends completely on the distribution. If the seasonal range is larger and winter longer - as it apparently was a few thousand years ago, with very warm summer days and bitter cold winter nights - humans would be better off with a colder average. If the seasonal range is compressed, and summer longer, a warmer average temperature would be an improvement.

And then of course everything would adjust, and a new limiting factor would appear, and the optimal temp might be back where it is now.

AGW research establishes a strong likelihood of disasters for industrial civilization and most ecosystems, with recovery even under ideal circumstances taking centuries, at a mere 3C rise in the "average" temperature of the biosphere of the planet if it is too rapid. Most of that is from distribution and the effects of distribution of the extra heat. Heat waves, humidity waves, droughts, floods, storms, shifts in monsoon and other such patterns, expansion of the ocean, melting of ice at high latitudes, alterations of currents and winds, wildfires, stationary waves in the jet stream, expansion of pest and disease ranges, etc etc etc. Not the average temperature.

And that's just the weather.

That is what you are denying.

 

[iceaura]

We have no control? Ok, fine with me. Then, stop all these politics related with climate change, this is anyway only loss of taxpayers money for things we cannot control.

So, what is the difference between the "less CO2 emissions" vs. the "some nuclear bombs" proposals for lowering temperature?

And that, folks, is where the "absurd" in "absurd denial" comes from.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are no criteria of "optimal" that will make "the optimal temperature" of the planet a meaningful term.

Nonsense. Optimal for human survival would be a simple criterion. The number of human beings which can survive on Earth at a given temperature, with the actual technical abilities and the actual organisms as given, is sufficiently well-defined.

Look: all benefits of average temperature depend on a particular distribution in both time and space. Until you specify that distribution, there is no optimal temperature.

Of course. But the particular distribution is the one defined by the average temperature, and can be predicted by climate models. That actual climate models have a lot of faults does not make them undefined or undefinable or meaningless or so. The AGW scenarios rely on such climate models, so I can rely on them in my definition of an optimal temperature too, not?

AGW research establishes a strong likelihood of disasters for industrial civilization and most ecosystems, with recovery even under ideal circumstances taking centuries, at a mere 3C rise in the "average" temperature of the biosphere of the planet if it is too rapid.

And how is this relevant for the question if the notion of an optimal average temperature is meaningful?

I have not questioned that an immediate, or too fast switch toward the optimal temperature would be harmful, because of the large transition costs. I have not questioned that a too large increase in temperature would be harmful - this is part of the notion of an optimal temperature that a temperature higher than the optimal one would be harmful.

Most of that is from distribution and the effects of distribution of the extra heat. Heat waves, humidity waves, droughts, floods, storms, shifts in monsoon and other such patterns, expansion of the ocean, melting of ice at high latitudes, alterations of currents and winds, etc etc etc. Not the average temperature.

But a moment ago you have made this all presenting at depending on the average temperature. 3 degrees would make all this catastrophic. Fine, in this case 3 degrees would be too large, and the optimal temperature would be, say, only 2 degrees. It would not make the notion of an optimal average temperature nonsensical. It only proposes a particular hypothesis about its value.

 

[iceaura]

Nonsense. Optimal for human survival would be a simple criterion. The number of human beings which can survive on Earth at a given temperature, with the actual technical abilities and the actual organisms as given, is sufficiently well-defined.

You cannot possibly be that clueless. Seriously - tell me you're just trolling now.

Of course. But the particular distribution is the one defined by the average temperature, and can be predicted by climate models. That actual climate models have a lot of faults does not make them undefined or undefinable or meaningless or so. The AGW scenarios rely on such climate models, so I can rely on them in my definition of an optimal temperature too, not?

No, you can't. (Unless you simply want to pretenhd that the current average temperature, whatever it is, is the best of all time and cannot possibly be improved.) They are set up to model the transition, not predict some new equilibrium - and they have their hands full with that.

But a moment ago you have made this all presenting at depending on the average temperature. 3 degrees would make all this catastrophic. Fine, in this case 3 degrees would be too large, and the optimal temperature would be, say, only 2 degrees

No. The disasters are not from the 3C. The disasters are from the sudden jump to 3C. Properly arrived at, there might be no disaster at 5C, 6C even. And properly distributed, there might be gains from -2C. Until everything adjusted, and a new limiting factor of temperature was established, and the optimal temperature changed once again.

There is no optimal temperature.

I have not questioned that an immediate, or too fast switch toward the optimal temperature would be harmful, because of the large transition costs. I have not questioned that a too large increase in temperature would be harmful

Yes, you have. Directly and explicitly, you "doubted" AGW. Your word - "doubt". And that's what AGW is - the discovery that unless something is done average temperature changes that are too rapid and too large are coming, unavoidably, to the climate of this planet.

 

[Schmelzer]

You cannot possibly be that clueless. Seriously - tell me you're just trolling now.

I prefer to wait for your counterarguments. Trolling or not - if you have none, you are the loser.

No, you can't. (Unless you simply want to pretend that the current average temperature, whatever it is, is the best of all time and cannot possibly be improved.) They are set up to model the transition, not predict some new equilibrium - and they have their hands full with that.

If they are able to model the transition, they can as well be used to model a resulting equilibrium. And, don't forget, we argue not about the question if actual climate models are good enough to reach the aim. We are arguing about the question if such modelling is, at least in principle, able to do such things. If, as you claim, the whole notion would be nonsensical and meaningless, then all this climate modelling would be nonsensical and meaningless too, however good from a scientific point of view the modelling would be done.

No. The disasters are not from the 3C. The disasters are from the sudden jump to 3C. Properly arrived at, there might be no disaster at 5C, 6C even.

So, that means, everything is fine, no problem at all. Because I have never denied that the transition is a problem. The optimal temperature is about what would be optimal if properly arrived at.

And properly distributed, there might be gains from -2C.

Yes, but irrelevant because there are no means (controlled or controllable or not) to change the distribution. While we have some means (CO2 emissions, nuclear explosions) to influence global average temperature.

Until everything adjusted, and a new limiting factor of temperature was established, and the optimal temperature changed once again.
There is no optimal temperature.

No. The optimal temperature depends on various things, like evolution, natural as well as technical. But for every particular state of evolution, including the actual one, there is a meaningful notion of an optimal temperature.

Yes, you have. Directly and explicitly, you "doubted" AGW. Your word - "doubt". And that's what AGW is - the discovery that unless something is done average temperature changes that are too rapid and too large are coming, unavoidably, to the climate of this planet.

And it seems no iceaura posting is complete without a lie.

 

[iceaura]

If they are able to model the transition, they can as well be used to model a resulting equilibrium

Your assertion is false. There is no equilibrium involved, and the models cannot produce one.

If, as you claim, the whole notion would be nonsensical and meaningless, then all this climate modelling would be nonsensical and meaningless too, however good from a scientific point of view the modelling would be done.

That assertion is obviously and clearly false. The transition is at least a few hundred years, the models only deal with the next century or so at the outside anyway, and projections of an equilibrium state are too far in the future to be meaningful. Also, they would involve factors - such as the working of industrial civilization a century from now - essentially impossible to estimate even in direction (will there be one) let alone scale and influence.

So, that means, everything is fine, no problem at all. Because I have never denied that the transition is a problem. The optimal temperature is about what would be optimal if properly arrived at.

There is no such thing. And you have denied the nature of the transition as described in AGW findings. You not only doubted, you defended your doubts as "legitimate". You claimed all such doubts were legitimate.

Yes, but irrelevant because there are no means (controlled or controllable or not) to change the distribution.

But the distribution may very well change, and keep changing - almost certainly, in fact, it will. The Gulf Stream is going to move, perhaps even shut down, for example. Deep water warmed a hundred years ago on the surface is going to resurface. Etc.

Since you can't deal with that, you can't even begin to define - let alone create under control - an "optimal temperature". There isn't any such thing.

- - But for every particular state of evolution, including the actual one, there is a meaningful notion of an optimal temperature.

You're wrong about that.

I prefer to wait for your counterarguments. Trolling or not - if you have none, you are the loser.

Quoted for illustration.

This is what this guy says I need a "counterargument" for: " Optimal for human survival would be a simple criterion. The number of human beings which can survive on Earth at a given temperature, with the actual technical abilities and the actual organisms as given, is sufficiently well-defined."

Mind, this is after - long after - the guy has been introduced to such matters as the concept of temperature distribution in time and space.

This illustrates the difference between an absurd denial and some reasonable doubt.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your assertion is false. There is no equilibrium involved, and the models cannot produce one.

Nonsense. All you need is to run the model long enough with unchanged input data. (There may be, of course, several local equilibria, and you get in this way only one of them, but so what, this would be the most relevant one, the one which starts in our actual situation).

That assertion is obviously and clearly false. The transition is at least a few hundred years, the models only deal with the next century or so at the outside anyway, and projections of an equilibrium state are too far in the future to be meaningful. Also, they would involve factors - such as the working of industrial civilization a century from now - essentially impossible to estimate even in direction (will there be one) let alone scale and influence.

Again, we are not talking about what is possible with actual models (they may be scrap, I don't know), but what good climate models could compute in principle. And the question is not if such a computation makes much sense from a practical point of view, but if it is a well-defined notion in the way I have defined it. As defined, there is no problem at all to run it ignoring any technical progress as well as evolution, because this is how I have defined the notion.

But the distribution may very well change, and keep changing - almost certainly, in fact, it will. The Gulf Stream is going to move, perhaps even shut down, for example. Deep water warmed a hundred years ago on the surface is going to resurface. Etc. Since you can't deal with that, you can't even begin to define - let alone create under control - an "optimal temperature". There isn't any such thing.

Of course, the distribution will depend on the temperature, and this is what the models would have to compute. Of course, the weather will be chaotic, it is already now chaotic, with no equlibrium weather. But what is named "climate" is a stable thing.

This is what this guy says I need a "counterargument" for: " Optimal for human survival would be a simple criterion. The number of human beings which can survive on Earth at a given temperature, with the actual technical abilities and the actual organisms as given, is sufficiently well-defined."
Mind, this is after - long after - the guy has been introduced to such matters as the concept of temperature distribution in time and space.

Iceaura has, obviously, a problem to understand the simple concept of an average temperature. And that a climate model will give us a lot of different possible solutions for a stable climate, with a lot of different distributions of temperatures in time and space, but that one can also compute, for each such climate, an average temperature. And, then, compute also how many humans can survive in that particular temperature distribution. So, for each particular average temperature the model defines a corresponding climate, which contains all the temperature distributions, humidity distributions, cloud distributions, and a lot of other distributions, all of them inhomogeneous in space and over the time of a year, all of them with ranges which describe the volatility, and whatever else you need to compute some expectation about how many people can survive, with actual technologies, on Earth.

And we should never forget the basic point of iceaura: Doubt about the Party line is illegitimate.

And you have denied the nature of the transition as described in AGW findings. You not only doubted, you defended your doubts as "legitimate". You claimed all such doubts were legitimate.

 

[iceaura]

Nonsense. All you need is to run the model long enough with unchanged input data

Good lord.
Once again, as throughout your posting here: when you have no information, and you don't know what you are talking about, your guesses are unlikely to be correct. (Hint: chaos was discovered by a guy analyzing the behavior of a model set up to predict the weather).

Again, we are not talking about what is possible with actual models (they may be scrap, I don't know), but what good climate models could compute in principle.

No model can provide you with "the optimal temperature", because there isn't one.

Of course, the distribution will depend on the temperature, and this is what the models would have to compute.

No, it won't.
For one thing, other factors will intervene, and change over the centuries, and alter the distribution as well as the average continually. The Antarctic and Greenland ice is going to be melting for centuries to come, for example (at least, we hope it takes that long).

Iceaura has, obviously, a problem to understand the simple concept of an average temperature.

There is no such thing as "the optimal average temperature". When you understand that, get back to me.

And that a climate model will give us a lot of different possible solutions for a stable climate, with a lot of different distributions of temperatures in time and space, but that one can also compute, for each such climate, an average temperature. And, then, compute also how many humans can survive in that particular temperature distribution. So, for each particular average temperature the model defines a corresponding climate, which contains all the temperature distributions, humidity distributions, cloud distributions, and a lot of other distributions, all of them inhomogeneous in space and over the time of a year, all of them with ranges which describe the volatility, and whatever else you need to compute some expectation about how many people can survive, with actual technologies, on Earth.

And people think science fiction is harmless.

And we should never forget the basic point of iceaura: Doubt about the Party line is illegitimate.

Claiming AGW is a "Party line" is an absurd denial of the common physical reality of AGW. Remember when you denied denying AGW? Demanded quotes and proof? There it is.

 

[wellwisher]

Claiming AGW is a "Party line" is an absurd denial of the common physical reality of AGW. Remember when you denied denying AGW? Demanded quotes and proof? There it is.

Natural warming and climate change has occurred many times in the earth's history. For example, there was a great warming and climate change cycle that ushered us out of the last ice age. This is well documented and not denied by anyone. Nature has proven on many occasions it can do this.

If we work the under the assumption, the current cycle of warming and climate change is due to man, it is first and only such data point in the history of the earth. If true,this would be the first and only time man has caused climate change in the 5 billion year history of the earth.

The problem with one good data point is, you can draw any curve you want through a single data point and make the curve touch that one point. However, there is no way to know if this is the correct curve, since you have only one good data point on your plot. If we had two points we can draw a line. But with one, we don't know the best angle, with the same level of certainty as two points.

Proof of this is, the curves drawn so far, since before Al Gore, using the single man made climate change data point, are not extrapolating properly to the future. The polar caps were supposed to be melted by now, based on the original curves drawn through that one single manmade data point. The angle for the curve is not correct. There is no science consensus for this angle, that is also proving to be 100% reliable. The consensus is only for the one data point, not the curve.

The political confusion comes down to the left and most of related science seeing the one data point as real and valid. The right sees a fuzzier data point, since this is the only data point that has even been. There is no way to compare to a second to be 100% sure. The right also knows you can't be sure your curve is correct, even of we assume the data point is correct.

The left is willing to commit huge resources, on their curve, using a single data point, while offering no accountability if this curve is proven not to be correct. If we waste $trillions, how does the tax payer have this made right?

The better safe than sorry solution is to commit the resources, but if it does to work out, everyone who uses these resources or gains from these resources, has to pay it back. If you are convinced this is the correct curve, take the risk. Currently, it is set up with no accountability, which draws in all the scammers and schemers, who will take advantage, knowing they will not have to pay anything back, if wrong.

It is set up as win-win for the con artists and lose-lose for the tax payer. It should be win-win for the tax payer. Nancy Pelosi is rich. She can put her fortune up on the betting table. If this does not work out, she loses the bet. The scientists who take the resources, will need to pay it back to the tax payers if this does bot work out. If the consensus is so sure, they will take the bet. If it is a scam or of they ar only pretending to be sure, they will back peddle.

 

[Schmelzer]

Good lord.
Once again, as throughout your posting here: when you have no information, and you don't know what you are talking about, your guesses are unlikely to be correct. (Hint: chaos was discovered by a guy analyzing the behavior of a model set up to predict the weather).

I know. This is what makes the difference between weather and climate.

For one thing, other factors will intervene, and change over the centuries, and alter the distribution as well as the average continually. The Antarctic and Greenland ice is going to be melting for centuries to come, for example (at least, we hope it takes that long).

Some other factors (human technology) I have explicitly excludes, so that they do not matter. The Antarctic and Greenland ice will have, for every particular temperature, some final stable value. Which may, of course, be nothing if the temperature is too high. That some effects may take a long time for reaching a stable state does not make the definition of that stable state nonsensical.

Claiming AGW is a "Party line" is an absurd denial of the common physical reality of AGW. Remember when you denied denying AGW? Demanded quotes and proof? There it is.

As usual, the quote in no way says AGW is a Party line. It says, in your opinion to doubt the Party line is illegitimate. Which is obvious, even if you deny to be a Party soldier defending the Party line.

Then, even if AGW is Party line, so what? I have never said that the Party line cannot contain truth too. So, classifying something as Party line does not mean that that something is wrong.

 

[iceaura]

I know. This is what makes the difference between weather and climate.

The longer you run your climate change models on a given set of input data, the farther from reality they will get. They will not provide you with a reliable equilibrium long term.

In theory, they won't: There are non-linear feedback loops in them, and they will separate points in your input data. In practice they won't: you are now talking about geological time scales, and they do not include the influences on that scale.

Plus, to determine an optimal temperature, if there was one, you would have to predict some specifics of the weather. Local heat and cold extremes all over the planet for example, and maximum storm surges, and floods - that's not climate.

Some other factors (human technology) I have explicitly excludes, so that they do not matter. The Antarctic and Greenland ice will have, for every particular temperature, some final stable value.

Excluding stuff from your analysis, like not "seeing" it and your other deflections, doesn't make it not matter. Good climate for human beings depends on their technology, for example.
Meanehile, the ice will never have some final, stable value (although zero can be maintained for a long time, if everything else cooperates). Nor will the influence of having melted it end when it's all melted - the cascade of effects will take several full ocean turnover cycles to play out, even after the temperature effects have blended into the background trends and changes, for example.
And there is no particular temperature involved. That's an empty concept, as noted above.

It's hopeless. You're tilting at a windmill, with this "optimal temperature" foolishness.

As usual, the quote in no way says AGW is a Party line. It says, in your opinion to doubt the Party line is illegitimate

My explicit opinion is that doubting AGW as you do is illegitimate. I mention no Party line at all - even more clearly, I explicitly noted that all reality based "lines", Party and otherwise, include AGW. There are many such possible lines, and they contradict each other - nobody could defend them all, and I'm not defending any of them.
The only way that doubt of AGW and doubt of a "Party line" can be substituted for each other, as you do freely, is if AGW - the physical reality of it, AGW itself, what I said you doubted when I posted "you doubt AGW" - is itself and without anything added some sort of "Party line".
That is denial of AGW.

Then, even if AGW is Party line, so what? I have never said that the Party line cannot contain truth too. So, classifying something as Party line does not mean that that something is wrong.

The topic is your doubt of AGW. Your doubt is absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

The longer you run your climate change models on a given set of input data, the farther from reality they will get.

That would be a problem of you want to know the time evolution. Not if you want to find out an equilibrium.

They will not provide you with a reliable equilibrium long term. In theory, they won't: There are non-linear feedback loops in them, and they will separate points in your input data. In practice they won't: you are now talking about geological time scales, and they do not include the influences on that scale.

The important feedbacks, which are necessary to make the temperature effects big, are short term. Geological time feedbacks can be ignored. And, just for your information: An equilibrium is usually much easier to compute than a time evolution. because it needs one dimension less.

Plus, to determine an optimal temperature, if there was one, you would have to predict some specifics of the weather. Local heat and cold extremes all over the planet for example, and maximum storm surges, and floods - that's not climate.

So what, as if some example weather computations for a particular climate would be something impossible.

Excluding stuff from your analysis, like not "seeing" it and your other deflections, doesn't make it not matter. Good climate for human beings depends on their technology, for example.

And so what? Existing technology will not be lost, future technologies will make weather problems more harmless. So, restricting everything to actual technology is the worst case scenario.

Meanehile, the ice will never have some final, stable value (although zero can be maintained for a long time, if everything else cooperates). Nor will the influence of having melted it end when it's all melted - the cascade of effects will take several full ocean turnover cycles to play out, even after the temperature effects have blended into the background trends and changes, for example.
And there is no particular temperature involved. That's an empty concept, as noted above.

Don't forget that all what you claim now can be easily used by real AGW deniers to explain why all what is actually done is nonsense.

It means, it makes no sense at all to have some climate change below 2 degrees or so, once one cannot even compute the climate to be expected with 2 degrees more than now. Even to a degree that you cannot tell if this would be good or bad. But predicting a big catastrophe you can ...

My explicit opinion is that doubting AGW as you do is illegitimate. The only way that doubt of AGW and doubt of a "Party line" can be substituted for each other, as you do freely, is if AGW - the physical reality of it, AGW itself, what I said you doubted when I posted "you doubt AGW" - is itself and without anything added some sort of "Party line".

And we have seen here the arguments to justify this. Given that I have not denied even a single result of a single peer-reviewed paper. Given that I have not denied even the main popular theses. All I have done is to see a clear distortion of truth in the media, to see some evidence for pressure on science, but without questioning any particular results of this science under pressure.

And the logic of the last - that naming AGW Party line would be denial of AGW - is nonsense too, given that I have explicitly said several times that Party lines can be, in some points, true too. So, it was always communist Party line to support natural sciences.

 

[iceaura]

And so what? Existing technology will not be lost, future technologies will make weather problems more harmless.

We certainly hope that is the case. We are taking a serious risk that it is not the case - that existing technology will be lost, for example.

It means, it makes no sense at all to have some climate change below 2 degrees or so, once one cannot even compute the climate to be expected with 2 degrees more than now. Even to a degree that you cannot tell if this would be good or bad.

You seem to be confused about AGW - it is a changing, a warming, a set of probabilities, not a given equilibrium temperature. The likely and possible effects of this warming, as it continues, can be computed and have been. They are almost entirely negative, btw - because the warming is so rapid.

And we have seen here the arguments to justify this. Given that I have not denied even a single result of a single peer-reviewed paper. Given that I have not denied even the main popular theses.

You have. And I have clearly labeled several of your denials, quoting them and pointing to them, for your information.

All I have done is to see a clear distortion of truth in the media, to see some evidence for pressure on science, but without questioning any particular results of this science under pressure.

You explicitly questioned the established secondary and amplifying factors that increase the warming from the CO2 boost. Hundreds of papers there, the lot of them "doubted" by you. You stated you held everything except the "logarithmic" warming influence of CO2 boosting in doubt.
That is explicit denial of AGW. Your denial is absurd.
(And you have mistaken the pressure - in the US, it's the opposite of your assumptions. The cause of that appears to be your seeing some distortions in the media that do not exist, and invalidly extrapolating from the media to the science without information).

And the logic of the last - that naming AGW Party line would be denial of AGW - is nonsense too, given that I have explicitly said several times that Party lines can be, in some points, true too.

AGW is not a Party line, but a physical reality. You have described even that statement - that AGW is an established physical reality, not open to legitimate doubt - as defending a Party line. That is denial of AGW.

 

[Schmelzer]

You seem to be confused about AGW - it is a changing, a warming, a set of probabilities, not a given equilibrium temperature. The likely and possible effects of this warming, as it continues, can be computed and have been.

So that the likely and possible effects can be computed, and have been computed. And, of course, in any particular example of such a computation one can, also, easily compute the average temperature.

You have. And I have clearly labeled several of your denials, quoting them and pointing to them, for your information.

All these labels have been lies, not supported at all by your quotes, and you never quoted even a single peer-reviewed paper in contradiction to any particular claim I have made.

You explicitly questioned the established secondary and amplifying factors that increase the warming from the CO2 boost. Hundreds of papers there, the lot of them "doubted" by you. You stated you held everything except the "logarithmic" warming influence of CO2 boosting in doubt. That is explicit denial of AGW. Your denial is absurd.

So, as usual, not deny, but simply doubt, a doubt which was, btw, simply justified by the fact that I have not studied this question, and in no way implied that there was really anything wrong with the results. So, indeed, we have a clear case that a simple refusal to support the Party line, simply because I have not studied the particular question, is named "denial".

And you have mistaken the pressure - in the US, it's the opposite of your assumptions.

You think so, I think it is you who has mistaken the pressure.

I have given a clear and simple base for my position about this: The optimal average temperature is probably higher than the actual one. And that means that some small and not too fast amount of climate warming will have positive consequences. Even if the actual warming would be too fast, so that the costs for the transition would be larger than the positive effects, some positive effects would nonetheless be present. The mass media do not present them at all. This indicates a political pressure in the direction of a climate hysteria.